Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inbound into LAX windy conditions were reported. I was the pilot flying within aircraft limitations and my capabilities. I continued to manually hand fly the approach from about 1;500 feet AGL at the planned destination. We proceeded with a normal stable approach flaps 25 which included the necessary wind additives for the reported conditions. Everything was proceeding normally until short final and flare. Wind shear warning activated followed by gusty winds from the left. At this point I executed a go around that proceeded to alternate airport with more favorable conditions. During the go around Tower reported a possible engine strike on the right side. All aircraft indications and systems were normal. Tower then reported no debris were found on the runway. We therefore continued and landed safely at the alternate airport. On post flight; damage was confirmed to the engine.


Second narrative: I was the pilot monitoring the ILS approach; flown by the Captain into LAX. Winds were reported as gusty; so a speed additive was applied to Vref. The crew originally planned a 30 flap approach; but elected to re-plan a 25 flap approach due to the reported gusty winds. The Captain flew a stabilized approach and consistently made timely and appropriate control inputs. I monitored his actions very closely and did not make any verbal inputs on final regarding the approach since he was consistently correcting and maintaining stable approach criteria. After crossing the threshold; I stated 'watch sink rate' only because the winds required significant control pressures along with a strong headwind component; the sink rate never became an issue; it was merely a preemptive call. Moments before completion of the landing; the right wing dipped and the Captain immediately executed a go around. During climb out; Tower advised someone reported one of our engines may have contacted the runway. We had no indications (feel; sound; instruments; etc) to support this report. Shortly thereafter; Tower reported a runway inspection showed no evidence of engine contact with the surface. The crew elected to divert to [nearby airport] (zero traffic and light winds) long before fuel may have become an issue. The approach and landing at [alternate] was normal. Upon block in; ground personnel confirmed one of the engines had damage.


Synopsis: The flight crew of a Boeing cargo aircraft reported experiencing windshear conditions during landing. A go-around was executed followed by a diversion to an alternate airport. At some point an engine pod made contact with the ground; which was verified on post flight inspection.