Ship repair done in a shipyard · California

Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions

Chula Vista, CA · ~41 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.5
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions runs at 15% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Ship repair done in a shipyard workplace, earning a grade A.

Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions: 0.5 TCR = 15% of Ship repair done in a shipyard BLS 3.3 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions safety composite

Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 96% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 52%), 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).

B

82/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0.51 per 100 workers

Safer than 96% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 87% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 52% 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%).

Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions held a steady TCR band

Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2018 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 2.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2018=0.0 · 2019=0.0 · 2020=2.6 · 2021=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 336611 · Chula Vista, CA AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 0.5 · 15% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #2/52
  • PHOTO Raytheon_Bath_ME
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 1 inj
  • SIZE ~41 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Raytheon_Bath_ME (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions averages 0.5 TCR (15% of the Ship repair done in a shipyard BLS benchmark).

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

Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions TCR series: 2018=0 · 2019=0 · 2020=2.6 · 2021=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 3.3

Where Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions falls in its industry

454 Ship repair done in a shipyard establishments

Safer than 96% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #2 safest of 52 Ship repair done in a shipyard employers in California.

Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions (41 employees, TCR 0.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 100 employees and a TCR of 4.2 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 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,000 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions
Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions (41 employees, TCR 0.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 100 employees and a TCR of 4.2

Curtiss-Wright Fleet Solutions has fewer employees than the Ship repair done in a shipyard median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.2. 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
2024 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 2.6 0.0 1 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

336611 · CA · Chula Vista

454 Ship repair done in a shipyard employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 219 employers in Chula Vista, 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 Raytheon_Bath_ME 0.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR BOLLINGER AMELIA REPAIR 0.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Tchoupitoulas Street 0.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR VLS Marine Services, LLC 0.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE CAL-O ORGANIC FARMING ADMINISTRATION 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sun Pacific Farming | Citrus Farming | Lindsay 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sun Pacific Farming | Citrus Farming | IEW Enterprise 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE George Jackson Farms, Inc. 41 FTE
CITY-NEAR Chula Vista Medical Center - 751 Medical Center Court 2,422 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sharp Chula Vista Medical Ctr 2,094 FTE
CITY-NEAR Rohr Inc a UTC Aerospace Systems Company 1,957 FTE
CITY-NEAR Rohr, Inc. (Chula Vista CA) 1,457 FTE
NAT-TCR McAdoo's Inc. 0.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Corporate Office 0.5 TCR
NAT-TCR St. Michael Elementary 0.5 TCR
NAT-TCR USA Baton Rouge 9211 General Chennault Dr 0.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE Steiner Electric Inc 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE Durable Corp 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE Lang Furniture, Inc. 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE SkyWater Florida 41 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: 2024, 2021, 2020, 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.