<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Mavlon]]></title><description><![CDATA[AI agent for faster quoting, designed for custom manufacturing (ETO style) industries.]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/blog</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2026 10:30:50 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://atishay990.wixstudio.com/mavlon-advanced/blog-feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title><![CDATA[AS9102 Form 2 Material and Process Documentation Guide]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have reviewed FAI packages where Form 3 was flawless, every dimension measured, every tolerance sourced, every GD&#38;T captured with datum references, and the customer still rejected the submission. The reason: Form 2 was incomplete. A missing NADCAP certificate for the anodise vendor. A material specification mismatch between the drawing and the mill certificate. A heat treatment processor listed without a certification reference. This AS9102 Form 2 material and process documentation guide...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/as9102-form-2-material-process-documentation-guide</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d116d7f7044e6cf7ad7049</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:37:59 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_63a66135267743928d333bfa259914e2~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_801,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[ISO 1101 vs ASME Y14.5 GDT Differences for Aerospace]]></title><description><![CDATA[I work with subcontractors who receive Airbus drawings on Monday and Boeing drawings on Wednesday. The GD&#38;T symbols look identical. The feature control frames are structured the same way. But the interpretation rules are different in ways that directly affect CMM programming, Form 3 documentation, and pass/fail decisions. A perpendicularity callout that passes under one standard may fail under the other. Understanding ISO 1101 vs ASME Y14 5 GDT differences for aerospace is not academic. It...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/iso-1101-vs-asme-y14-5-gdt-differences-aerospace</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d116f2e20d9d862f258840</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:37:29 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_acd5fe9c8e174a65a573bed6e7b649c4~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_800,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[Ballooned Drawing Requirements for AS9102 FAI]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have seen FAI packages rejected not because the measurements were wrong, but because the ballooned drawing was missing from the submission. The Form 3 had 95 perfect rows. Every measurement passed. But the customer could not trace characteristic 47 back to the drawing because there was no ballooned drawing showing where balloon 47 points. Understanding ballooned drawing requirements for AS9102 FAI submission is essential because the ballooned drawing is not optional. It is the visual link...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/ballooned-drawing-requirements-as9102-fai</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11724cc46c6bc6b9f314d</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:36:48 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_66ea3b48c8174e91bfa8bbb872691f03~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_800,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[Airbus Drawing Conventions for Aerospace Subcontractors]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have worked with shops that machined Boeing parts for 15 years and then received their first Airbus drawing package. The culture shock was real. Everything they knew about general tolerance blocks, classified holes, and PVS documents did not apply. The drawing was in millimeters, the tolerances were governed by ISO 2768mk, the GD&#38;T followed ISO 1101, and the surface treatment specifications referenced European standards they had never seen. Understanding Airbus drawing conventions for...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/airbus-drawing-conventions-aerospace-subcontractors</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11703cc46c6bc6b9f3121</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:36:29 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_7dca2cd448cc43be9212c5a8523d719c~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_767,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[Surface Roughness Symbols on Aerospace Drawings Explained]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have processed drawings where the estimator captured every dimension, every GD&#38;T callout, and every blanket tolerance correctly, but missed the surface finish requirement entirely. On a 7-sheet bracket with Class 1 anodisation-critical surfaces, that single omission changed the finishing cost by $8,000 across a 200-unit production run. Surface roughness symbols on aerospace drawings are one of the most commonly overlooked spec categories, and one of the most expensive to miss. The surface...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/surface-roughness-symbols-aerospace-drawings-explained</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11fb9cc46c6bc6b9f4135</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:36:09 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_df95640abde44b6a9c8247051ff9b549~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_802,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[Auto Ballooning Software for Aerospace FAI Compared]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have timed the manual ballooning process on a 7-sheet aerospace bracket at over 5 hours. That includes placing 95 numbered circles on the drawing, creating the corresponding Form 3 row for each one, and deduplicating features that appear in multiple views. The promise of auto ballooning software is cutting that time to minutes. The reality is more nuanced. Every tool I have evaluated gets approximately 85 to 90% of dimensions right on clean drawings but struggles with the same 10 to 15%...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/auto-ballooning-software-aerospace-fai-compared</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11fb02a4608ae0021ad36</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:35:06 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_c1eacf9b13a0448b8313908a3560877b~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_800,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[Edge Break and Chamfer Requirements on Aerospace Drawings]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have watched estimators spend three hours extracting every dimension and GD&#38;T callout from a complex drawing, then completely ignore the note that says "Break all sharp edges 0.3 to 0.5mm." That note creates an inspectable requirement on every single external edge of the part, potentially dozens or hundreds of edges. When the quality engineer builds the Form 3, those edge requirements must be documented. When the inspector verifies the part, every edge must be checked. Missing edge break...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/edge-break-chamfer-requirements-aerospace-drawings</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11fa72a4608ae0021ad1f</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:34:45 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_eacbc2eab21248298c3d9e0284da3217~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_900,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[Surface Finish Conversion Chart Ra to RMS for Aerospace]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have processed drawings from three different OEMs in the same week: one specified Ra in micrometers, one specified Ra in microinches, and one specified RMS in microinches. All three were asking for essentially the same surface finish on similar aluminum features, but the numbers looked completely different. Ra 1.6 micrometers. 63 microinches. RMS 63. Without a reliable surface finish conversion chart Ra to RMS for aerospace, you either spend 10 minutes per value doing mental arithmetic or...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/surface-finish-conversion-chart-ra-rms-aerospace</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11f9ef7044e6cf7ad8090</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:34:12 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_b17b3c9c32b94c068bb61d337ee33164~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_742,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[NADCAP Special Process Requirements for AS9102 FAI]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have seen a $45,000 production lot held at the dock because the anodise vendor's NADCAP certificate had expired 6 weeks before processing the parts. The parts were perfect. Every dimension was within tolerance. The anodise met the specification visually and by thickness measurement. But the traceability chain was broken: the process was performed by a vendor who was not accredited at the time of processing. Understanding NADCAP special process requirements for AS9102 FAI prevents this...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/nadcap-special-process-requirements-as9102-fai</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11f95f7044e6cf7ad807e</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:33:52 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_e51cf560307646e8b150b92fd3ca95ad~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_900,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[Thread Callouts on Aerospace Drawings for FAI]]></title><description><![CDATA[I processed a titanium aerospace part with an M12x1.75-6g LH thread callout and an M5x0.8-6H tapped hole. The extraction engine grouped them as single notes instead of expanding each element into its inspectable components. That single mistake meant the Form 3 was missing thread pitch verification, class verification, and the left-hand designation. Thread callouts on aerospace drawings carry more inspectable data per line of text than almost any other annotation type, and getting them wrong...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/thread-callouts-aerospace-drawings-fai</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11f8ccc46c6bc6b9f40ec</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:33:35 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_01717767fe4a473d9a1047787d43271a~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_800,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[AMS Material Specifications for Aerospace CNC Machining]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have reviewed FAI packages where the quality engineer listed "Al 7075-T6" on Form 2 without referencing the specific AMS specification. The customer rejected it because "7075-T6" is an alloy and temper designation, not a material specification. The drawing called out AMS 4078 (7075-T6 sheet), and the shop purchased AMS 4050 (7075-T6 plate). Both are 7075-T6, but they are different product forms with different mechanical property requirements. Understanding AMS material specifications for...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/ams-material-specifications-aerospace-cnc-machining</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11f84f7044e6cf7ad801f</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:33:18 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_5d1aee80b59f4d1c96fd24dc6de708c6~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_800,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[How to Auto Balloon a PDF Drawing for FAI]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have watched quality engineers spend an entire day manually ballooning and extracting a 7-sheet aerospace drawing. The next day, they discovered 3 duplicate balloons, a missing GD&#38;T callout from Sheet 5, and the surface class designation from Sheet 7 completely absent from the Form 3. A full day of work, and the FAI was still incomplete. Learning how to auto balloon a PDF drawing for FAI correctly, including the verification steps that most people skip, cuts that full day down to 2 to 3...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/how-to-auto-balloon-pdf-drawing-fai</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11f7a2a4608ae0021accb</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:32:59 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_e2c1d0c4dcdb43e78fde4859edf9f6ff~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_800,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[Auto Ballooning Accuracy for GD&#38;T and Tolerances on Aerospace Drawings]]></title><description><![CDATA[A quality engineer who uses DISCUS IDA and Net-Inspect daily told me directly: "You need a good quality drawing to get 90% accuracy. The remaining 10% issue is the feature control frame and the notes." That 10% is not a minor cleanup task. On a 95-characteristic drawing, 10% means 9 to 10 characteristics that are wrong or incomplete. Those 9 to 10 are concentrated in the hardest, most inspection-critical categories: GD&#38;T with datum references, blanket tolerance application, and fit class...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/auto-ballooning-accuracy-gdt-tolerances-aerospace</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11a35e20d9d862f258e26</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:32:20 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_9c6ff0d7b4464181897a7ffabfad27b3~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_1000,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[True Position Calculation for Aerospace FAI]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have seen Form 3 submissions where the quality engineer listed the X and Y coordinate deviations for each hole but did not calculate the actual true position value. The CMM report showed X deviation = +0.003" and Y deviation = -0.004". The Form 3 listed both numbers. But the customer's reviewer wanted one number: the true position diameter. Without that calculation, the FAI was sent back for revision. True position calculation for aerospace FAI is one of the most frequently mishandled steps...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/true-position-calculation-aerospace-fai</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69d11a2d072d140cb957252c</guid><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:31:45 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_3f43e0609d144249b07d68cec332924b~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_800,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[AS9100 Certified Shop Quoting Best Practices]]></title><description><![CDATA[I talk to AS9100 certified shop owners every week. Most of them got their certification to win aerospace work. Some of them are winning it. Most of them are quoting it wrong. They use the same quoting process they used for commercial work, add 20% for "aerospace complexity," and wonder why their margins are thinner than their tolerance bands. AS9100 certified shop quoting best practices are fundamentally different from general manufacturing quoting because the input is different: you are...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/as9100-certified-shop-quoting-best-practices</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69c823865ed83abd8bc1d39f</guid><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 06:08:30 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_94e97e97b9c941259dc11387ded1fb49~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_900,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[How to Win More Aerospace Subcontract Work]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have analyzed quoting data from aerospace subcontractors and the pattern is always the same: shops that quote faster win more work. Not because their prices are lower. Not because their machines are better. Because speed signals competence, and in aerospace, competence is the currency that buys contracts. The industry average for quote turnaround is 5 to 6 days from RFQ receipt to quote sent. Shops that respond in 1 to 2 days win at 28 to 35%. Shops stuck at 5 or more days win at 12 to 20%....]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/how-to-win-more-aerospace-subcontract-work</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69c8238caf19906fa1780927</guid><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 06:07:56 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_b27d2b8d10c5414884bdf8ac55f6d32c~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_900,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[Aerospace Subcontractor Quality Department Setup]]></title><description><![CDATA[When I started working with aerospace subcontractors, I was surprised by how many shops had their AS9100 certificate on the wall but no structured quality department behind it. The certificate was a sales tool. The quality system was a single person doing everything: incoming inspection, in-process checks, FAI, customer complaints, audit preparation, and calibration management. All on the same desk, with the same overworked pair of hands. If you are setting up or rebuilding your aerospace...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/aerospace-subcontractor-quality-department-setup</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69c82392495b61304351aac1</guid><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 06:07:36 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_4531dcede1f341c8bcd414a3433e972f~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_800,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[GDT Interpretation for CNC Estimators]]></title><description><![CDATA[I have watched estimators at CNC shops skip over GD&#38;T symbols on drawings because they did not know what the symbols meant. They quoted the dimensional features (length, width, diameter) and ignored the little rectangular boxes with symbols and letters. Then the shop won the job, the quality engineer reviewed the drawing, and the GD&#38;T callouts added 8 hours of CMM time and 2 additional machining setups that were not in the quote. GDT interpretation for CNC estimators is not about becoming a...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/gdt-interpretation-for-cnc-estimators</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69c82398495b61304351aad3</guid><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 06:07:13 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_ba7133ada7e44f59877b27f583481463~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_800,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[How to Respond to Boeing RFQ as a Subcontractor]]></title><description><![CDATA[The first Boeing RFQ I processed took me three iterations just to get the tolerance sourcing right. If your shop has been working with European OEMs (Airbus, Safran, Dassault) and you just received your first Boeing drawing package, you are about to discover that Boeing does things differently. Knowing how to respond to Boeing RFQ as a subcontractor is the difference between a confident, accurate quote and a month of confusion that ends with a rejected FAI. This guide is for Tier 2-3...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/how-to-respond-to-boeing-rfq-as-subcontractor</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69c8239ecce1bd07dee73215</guid><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 06:06:51 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_2fb9ff86512b4cc0938de2b2c082f0cf~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_767,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[Aerospace Drawing Review Checklist for Estimators]]></title><description><![CDATA[I built this checklist after watching estimators miss the same specs on the same types of drawings over and over. The GD&#38;T callout on Sheet 5 that nobody reads. The surface class designation on the last sheet that adds $2,000 to outside processing. The fit class tolerance that turns a standard drilling operation into precision boring. Every one of these missed specs becomes a cost surprise after you win the job. This aerospace drawing review checklist for estimators is designed to be printed...]]></description><link>https://www.mavlon.co/post/aerospace-drawing-review-checklist-for-estimators</link><guid isPermaLink="false">69c823a4495b61304351aaea</guid><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 06:06:29 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/17748f_ceeb58d80cf94296961b184e3699d3c8~mv2.jpeg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_800,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>Atishay Jain</dc:creator></item></channel></rss>