Teaching machines (e.g., flight simulators) manufacturing · Pennsylvania

Fidelity Technologies Corporation

Reading, PA · ~808 workers · 3 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

Fidelity Technologies Corporation runs at 15% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Teaching machines (e.g., flight simulators) manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

Fidelity Technologies Corporation: 0.5 TCR = 15% of Teaching machines (e.g., flight simulators) manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Fidelity Technologies Corporation safety composite

Fidelity Technologies Corporation scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 94% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 50%), 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).

C

70/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0.48 per 100 workers

Safer than 94% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0.32 per 100 workers

Safer than 57% 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%).

Fidelity Technologies Corporation held a steady TCR band

Fidelity Technologies Corporation's TCR held near 0.2 from 0.6 in 2022 to 0.3 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 0.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.67× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2022=0.6 · 2023=0.6 · 2024=0.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 333318 · Reading, PA AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.5 · 15% of ind

  • DART 0.3 DART
  • RANK #1/21
  • PHOTO Duperon Headquarters
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 9 inj
  • SIZE ~808 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Duperon Headquarters (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Fidelity Technologies Corporation in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Fidelity Technologies Corporation averages 0.5 TCR (15% of the Teaching machines (e.g., flight simulators) manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Fidelity Technologies Corporation TCR series: 2022=0.6 · 2023=0.6 · 2024=0.3 · BLS 3.3

Where Fidelity Technologies Corporation falls in its industry

361 Teaching machines (e.g., fligh establishments

Safer than 94% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #1 safest of 21 Teaching machines (e.g., fligh employers in Pennsylvania.

Fidelity Technologies Corporation (808 employees, TCR 0.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 77 employees and a TCR of 2.7 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 Fidelity Technologies Corporation
Fidelity Technologies Corporation (808 employees, TCR 0.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 77 employees and a TCR of 2.7

Fidelity Technologies Corporation has more employees than the Teaching machines (e.g., flight simulato median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.7. 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 0.3 0.3 2 0 0
2023 0.6 0.4 4 1 0
2022 0.6 0.4 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

333318 · PA · Reading

361 Teaching machines (e.g., flight simulators) manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 303 employers in Reading, PA · 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 Duperon Headquarters 0.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Aquion, Inc. 0.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Oceaneering Entertainment Systems 0.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR LOGAN GRAPHIC PRODUCTS, INC 0.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation 808 FTE
STATE-SIZE Episcopal Hospital 808 FTE
STATE-SIZE Aqua Pennsylvania 807 FTE
STATE-SIZE D690-M001 807 FTE
CITY-NEAR READING HOSPITAL 5,693 FTE
CITY-NEAR SAO : Reading 2,203 FTE
CITY-NEAR A077 - Penn State Health St. Joseph Medical Center 1,764 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - TEN1 1,261 FTE
NAT-TCR Bancroft Construction Company 0.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Detector Electronics Corporation (Bloomington) 0.5 TCR
NAT-TCR ABF Freight 548 0.5 TCR
NAT-TCR New Vision Pharmaceuticals 0.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE OH_Columbus_1015 Olentangy River Rd._TWCMOH38 808 FTE
NAT-SIZE SYRACUSE-NY97 808 FTE
NAT-SIZE Chattanooga State Community College 808 FTE
NAT-SIZE Fulfillment Distribution Center Inc. 808 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, 2023, 2022. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.