Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft X arrived at the gate late. I was assigned to perform an ETOPS inspection at the gate. Immediately upon arrival I was informed by the crew chief that we had a #4 MLG tire change. The gate agents immediately were asking when they could board the aircraft. I told the gate agent that they could not board at the time because we had a tire change and an ETOPS inspection to perform. During this time I was told by the crew chief that a Manager called and said we will not hold up boarding for a tire change. I continued on with my ETOPS inspection during which a tire change crew completed the tire change of #4 MLG tire. I went downstairs and assisted in their clean up and removed the gear pins as per the work card.  No event occurred but a question arose. I was told that passengers do not equate to effecting CG of an aircraft per [Company] manuals. FAA guidelines for averaging passengers and their carry on luggage which equates to 190lbs per person; that would make 267 people moving into the aircraft while a tire change is being performed at approximately 26 tons. Would they not affect CG just as much as cargo? Boeing has since revised yet [company] in their constant changes to the Procedures Manual and work card changes have systematically overlooked new safety warnings and revisions and common sense in maintenance at the gate putting aircraft and mechanic personnel at risk. The warnings that Boeing have in place are that no crew or passengers are to be on aircraft during a tire change. They previously did not have gate operations taken into consideration in the writing of their manuals. They have systematically corrected that. Can we possibly get a review because this situation is still ongoing with tire changes at the gate? Airbus has their limits and charts unrelated to the work cards. But they are therein the AMM.Common sense about the basic operations and warnings of an aircraft were neglected to be heard by management concerning CG. Was told if it isn't on paper it can be done even though all warnings are about affecting the CG of the aircraft (i.e. cargo and refueling). Trying to hurry up the aircraft as to not take a delay by management.Review the warning and revisions put out by the aircraft manufacturers especially pertaining to safety of aircraft and personnel. Especially since management is constantly at the gate pushing you to complete your work fast; so there is no delay; leaving no room for the simplest of mistakes. Possibly have a manual guide lining maintenance and airport gate operations especially since we now have younger people entering the AMT workforce who do not have the prior knowledge us veteran AMTs do.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported that the company did not follow the manufacturer's guidelines concerning loading passengers while maintenance was performed on the aircraft.