Amusement device (except gambling) concession operators (i.e., supplying and servicing in others' facilities) · Illinois

iFLY Lincoln Park

Chicago, IL · ~21 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
6.8
Avg TCR
3.1
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

iFLY Lincoln Park runs at 219% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Amusement device (except gambling) concession operators (i.e., supplying and servicing in others' facilities) workplace, earning a grade F.

iFLY Lincoln Park: 6.8 TCR = 219% of Amusement device (except gambling) concession operators (i.e., supplying and servicing in others' facilities) BLS 3.1 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

iFLY Lincoln Park safety composite

iFLY Lincoln Park scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 17%), 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

34/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 6.79 per 100 workers

Safer than 38% of industry peers

DART rate
F 7.4 per 100 workers

Safer than 17% 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%).

Rising injury rate

iFLY Lincoln Park: 5.8 → 7.4 TCR

Peak year 2019 @ 7.4 TCR · DART/TCR 1.09× in 2019

iFLY Lincoln Park's TCR rose 1.6 from 5.8 in 2016 to 7.4 in 2019. In 2019, DART was 1.09× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 713990 · Chicago, IL ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 6.8 · 219% of ind

  • DART 7.4 DART
  • RANK #12/15
  • PHOTO Parks and Recreation
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 3 inj
  • SIZE ~21 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Parks and Recreation (0.0 TCR gap)

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

iFLY Lincoln Park in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows iFLY Lincoln Park averages 6.8 TCR (219% of the Amusement device (except gambling) concession operators (i.e., supplying and servicing in others' facilities) BLS benchmark).

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

iFLY Lincoln Park TCR series: 2016=5.8 · 2018=7.2 · 2019=7.4 · BLS 3.1

Where iFLY Lincoln Park falls in its industry

289 Amusement device (except gambl establishments

Safer than 38% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 5.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Illinois alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #12 safest of 15 Amusement device (except gambl employers in Illinois.

iFLY Lincoln Park (21 employees, TCR 6.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 42 employees and a TCR of 5.0 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 0200400600800 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate iFLY Lincoln Park
iFLY Lincoln Park (21 employees, TCR 6.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 42 employees and a TCR of 5.0

iFLY Lincoln Park has fewer employees than the Amusement device (except gambling) conce median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 5.0. 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 7.4 7.4 1 0 0
2018 7.2 0.0 1 0 0
2016 5.8 5.8 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

713990 · IL · Chicago

289 Amusement device (except gambling) concession operators (i.e., supplying and servicing in others' facilities) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,804 rated employers in Illinois with headcount on file · 2,934 employers in Chicago, IL · 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 Parks and Recreation 6.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Park & Recreation 6.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Topgolf Buford 6.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Topgolf Ontario 6.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Frank W. Lewis & Son Seed FArms, Inc 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE RAVENS LIVESTOCK & FARMS INC 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bushnell 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE 21st Century Sow Farm 21 FTE
CITY-NEAR Chicago Public Schools 49,500 FTE
CITY-NEAR Chicago/Corporate 18,831 FTE
CITY-NEAR University of Illinois at Chicago 13,092 FTE
CITY-NEAR University Health Service UIC UIC Campus 12,732 FTE
NAT-TCR 4769-526-Pottery Barn 6.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Interstate Blood and Plasma - Madison (Verona), WI 6.8 TCR
NAT-TCR 4039-03915700-00W001 6.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Pacific Ethanol Columbia, LLC 6.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE QSI Fair Oaks East 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE QSI Fair Oaks West 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE West Marine Store #1284 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE West Marine Store #1321 21 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, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.