B747-400
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Company Policy; Human Factors
I was pilot monitoring performing Check Airman duties with a First Officer (FO) performing pilot flying duties during his line training leg. Flight was routine. We discussed landing issues/terrain during cruise; and checked FOM for any applicable restrictions. Only FOM restriction that I could find was 'No autoland'. Flap 25 landing at 179 tons (ILS in VMC) with appropriate wind additive for headwind was planned. Landing was not smooth; but I did not consider it to be hard.On post-flight inspection; the right inboard trailing edge flap was found to be not fully retracted; and there was damage to one of the associated flap track fairings/canoes. Flaps had been selected to the up position after landing; and EICAS showed them fully retracted. Cockpit voice recorder was then pulled and Systems Control; Management Duty Pilot and Maintenance Control were informed of aircraft damage.In the distant past; I believe there was a procedure for the pilot monitoring to set a different barometer minimums bug to then have him make a callout to help compensate for the lack of radio altitude callouts? This might have been helpful to the pilot flying. In reality; the new First Officer undergoing training would have benefitted from some more recent flying experience or a simulator refresher prior to starting line training. In the future; I will delay flap retraction on any landing that is firmer than normal; as this may have prevented some aircraft damage.
B747-400 Check Airman described a hard landing by a new First Officer; receiving initial line training; that resulted in damage to one of the flap track fairings for the right inboard trailing edge flap.