Aircraft assemblies, subassemblies, and parts (except engines) manufacturing · California

Aerospace Dynamics Int.

Valencia, CA · ~423 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
11.3
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Aerospace Dynamics Int. runs at 342% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Aircraft assemblies, subassemblies, and parts (except engines) manufacturing workplace, earning a grade F.

Aerospace Dynamics Int.: 11.3 TCR = 342% of Aircraft assemblies, subassemblies, and parts (except engines) manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Aerospace Dynamics Int. safety composite

Aerospace Dynamics Int. scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 1%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

F

24/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 11.27 per 100 workers

Safer than 1% of industry peers

DART rate
F 1.24 per 100 workers

Safer than 33% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

TCR Δ

−20.1

2018→2019

Aerospace Dynamics Int. injury rate improved

Aerospace Dynamics Int.'s TCR fell 20.1 from 21.3 in 2018 to 1.2 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2018 at 21.3 TCR. In 2019, DART was 0.11× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2018=21.3 · 2019=1.2

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 336413 · Valencia, CA ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 11.3 · 342% of ind

  • DART 1.2 DART
  • RANK #102/104
  • PHOTO Lockheed Martin Corp…
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 28 inj
  • SIZE ~423 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Lockheed Martin Corporation LM Aero - Clarksburg (1508) (0.2 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · California employers → · Look up another →

Aerospace Dynamics Int. in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Aerospace Dynamics Int. averages 11.3 TCR (342% of the Aircraft assemblies, subassemblies, and parts (except engines) manufacturing BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Aerospace Dynamics Int. TCR series: 2018=21.3 · 2019=1.2 · BLS 3.3

Where Aerospace Dynamics Int. falls in its industry

650 Aircraft assemblies, subassemb establishments

Safer than 1% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #102 safest of 104 Aircraft assemblies, subassemb employers in California.

Aerospace Dynamics Int. (423 employees, TCR 11.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 130 employees and a TCR of 1.9 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 05001,0001,5002,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Aerospace Dynamics Int.
Aerospace Dynamics Int. (423 employees, TCR 11.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 130 employees and a TCR of 1.9

Aerospace Dynamics Int. has more employees than the Aircraft assemblies, subassemblies, and median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.9. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2019 1.2 1.2 5 0 0
2018 21.3 20.4 23 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

336413 · CA · Valencia

650 Aircraft assemblies, subassemblies, and parts (except engines) manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 186 employers in Valencia, CA · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Lockheed Martin Corporation LM Aero - Clarksburg (1508) 11.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR ArmorStruxx 12.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Triumph Aerostructures, LLC - MSF 9.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brittain Machine Inc 9.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE Fruity Ag, Inc. 423 FTE
STATE-SIZE HCI Systems Inc 423 FTE
STATE-SIZE Phillips Medisize Costa Mesa 423 FTE
STATE-SIZE Meggitt Engine Systems 423 FTE
CITY-NEAR California Department of Transportation Facility 62 2,621 FTE
CITY-NEAR Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital 1,776 FTE
CITY-NEAR Boston Scientific Neuromodulation 1,455 FTE
CITY-NEAR Woodward HRT Santa Clarita 726 FTE
NAT-TCR 030 ABC Supply Co. Inc 11.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Pool buiding and facilities 11.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Store 01 11.3 TCR
NAT-TCR 3495-11DA046 11.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Smithfield Wichita, KS 423 FTE
NAT-SIZE Galloway 423 FTE
NAT-SIZE Twin Cities 423 FTE
NAT-SIZE LSC Communications 423 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2019, 2018. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.