Airports, civil, operation and maintenance · Michigan

Kent Co. Airport Hanger

Grand Rapids, MI · ~61 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
1.4
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Kent Co. Airport Hanger runs at 31% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Airports, civil, operation and maintenance workplace, earning a grade A.

Kent Co. Airport Hanger: 1.4 TCR = 31% of Airports, civil, operation and maintenance BLS 4.5 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Kent Co. Airport Hanger safety composite

Kent Co. Airport Hanger scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 91% 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).

B

79/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 1.38 per 100 workers

Safer than 91% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 85% 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

−0.4

2016→2024

Kent Co. Airport Hanger injury rate improved

Kent Co. Airport Hanger's TCR fell 0.4 from 1.6 in 2016 to 1.1 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 4.7 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=1.6 · 2017=1.6 · 2018=1.7 · 2019=0.0 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=1.7 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=4.7 · 2024=1.1

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 488119 · Grand Rapids, MI AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 1.4 · 31% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #5/33
  • PHOTO Prospect Airport Ser…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~61 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Prospect Airport Services BNA (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Kent Co. Airport Hanger in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Kent Co. Airport Hanger averages 1.4 TCR (31% of the Airports, civil, operation and maintenance BLS benchmark).

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

Kent Co. Airport Hanger TCR series: 2016=1.6 · 2017=1.6 · 2018=1.7 · 2019=0 · 2020=0 · 2021=1.7 · 2022=0 · 2023=4.7 · 2024=1.1 · BLS 4.5

Where Kent Co. Airport Hanger falls in its industry

1,555 Airports, civil, operation and establishments

Safer than 91% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #5 safest of 33 Airports, civil, operation and employers in Michigan.

Kent Co. Airport Hanger (61 employees, TCR 1.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 65 employees and a TCR of 4.5 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 Kent Co. Airport Hanger
Kent Co. Airport Hanger (61 employees, TCR 1.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 65 employees and a TCR of 4.5

Kent Co. Airport Hanger has fewer employees than the Airports, civil, operation and maintenan median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.5. 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 1.1 0.0 0 1 0
2023 4.7 0.0 2 1 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 1.7 1.7 1 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 1.7 1.7 1 0 0
2017 1.6 0.0 1 0 0
2016 1.6 0.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

488119 · MI · Grand Rapids

1,555 Airports, civil, operation and maintenance employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 1,006 employers in Grand Rapids, MI · 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 Prospect Airport Services BNA 1.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR LBB-D 1.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR DGS Aviation Services : OAK - Oakland 1.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR 4833-66014 1.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE Sietsema Farms Feeds 61 FTE
STATE-SIZE Wolverine Service Center 61 FTE
STATE-SIZE J.R. Heineman & Sons, Inc. 61 FTE
STATE-SIZE 4785_10911 61 FTE
CITY-NEAR SHHG-GR BUTTERWORTH CA 9,012 FTE
CITY-NEAR SH Butterworth Hospital 7,397 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mercy Health Saint Mary's Hospital-MH-MI 2,914 FTE
CITY-NEAR Steelcase - Grand Rapids / Kentwood 2,817 FTE
NAT-TCR Menasha Packaging Company-Richmond G St. 1.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Florida 1.4 TCR
NAT-TCR 293 Armonk Limousine Car Service, Inc. 1.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Pomps Tire - Dupo Retread 515 1.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Spokane Flour Mill 61 FTE
NAT-SIZE Decatur Glycols 61 FTE
NAT-SIZE Queen City Plastics 61 FTE
NAT-SIZE 4062 Washington and Jefferson College 61 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, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 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.