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

iFLY Ontario

Ontario, CA · ~24 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
23.9
Avg TCR
3.1
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

iFLY Ontario runs at 773% 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 Ontario: 23.9 TCR = 773% 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 Ontario safety composite

iFLY Ontario scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 78% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 4%), 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).

D

41/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 23.95 per 100 workers

Safer than 4% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 78% 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 Ontario: 15.7 → 16.3 TCR

Peak year 2018 @ 39.8 TCR · DART/TCR 0× in 2019

iFLY Ontario's TCR rose 0.6 from 15.7 in 2016 to 16.3 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2018 at 39.8 TCR. In 2019, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 713990 · Ontario, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 23.9 · 773% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #30/31
  • PHOTO iFLY Dallas
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 12 inj
  • SIZE ~24 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: iFLY Dallas (0.2 TCR gap)

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

iFLY Ontario in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows iFLY Ontario averages 23.9 TCR (773% 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 Ontario TCR series: 2016=15.7 · 2018=39.8 · 2019=16.3 · BLS 3.1

Where iFLY Ontario falls in its industry

289 Amusement device (except gambl establishments

Safer than 4% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 5.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #30 safest of 31 Amusement device (except gambl employers in California.

iFLY Ontario (24 employees, TCR 23.9) 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 0102030 Average employees Total Case Rate iFLY Ontario
iFLY Ontario (24 employees, TCR 23.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 42 employees and a TCR of 5.0

iFLY Ontario 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 16.3 0.0 3 0 0
2018 39.8 39.8 6 0 0
2016 15.7 15.7 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

713990 · CA · Ontario

289 Amusement device (except gambling) concession operators (i.e., supplying and servicing in others' facilities) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 599 employers in Ontario, 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 iFLY Dallas 24.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR DAL-SGI-IFLY DALLAS 24.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Allegany County Fairgrounds 24.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR NEW MEXICO STATE FAIR 22.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE Agro-Jal Farming Enterprises 24 FTE
STATE-SIZE MTD Farms 24 FTE
STATE-SIZE Marc Pura Ranch, LLC 24 FTE
STATE-SIZE Costa Farms 24 FTE
CITY-NEAR Prime Healthcare Services Inc. Location: St. Mary's, Passaic LLC 46-3499370 (HP29) 10,997 FTE
CITY-NEAR CAONA - ONTARIO HUB 4,372 FTE
CITY-NEAR ONTARIO HUB (CAONA) 3,354 FTE
CITY-NEAR Atlantic Solutions Group Inc, Inc. DBA Empire Workforce Solutions 3,240 FTE
NAT-TCR Engel Burman Sr. Hoursing @ E. Northport 23.9 TCR
NAT-TCR 6458-ZEAU 23.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Patriots Glen Assisted Living and Memory Care 23.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Winston-Salem 23.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE iFLY San Antonio 24 FTE
NAT-SIZE iFLY Tampa 24 FTE
NAT-SIZE QSI Versailles 24 FTE
NAT-SIZE Shorewood PN Clinic 24 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.