Target drones, aircraft, manufacturing · California

Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1

Roseville, CA · ~211 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
1.3
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1 runs at 40% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Target drones, aircraft, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1: 1.3 TCR = 40% of Target drones, aircraft, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1 safety composite

Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1 scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 59% 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

55/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 1.32 per 100 workers

Safer than 59% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0.51 per 100 workers

Safer than 55% 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

Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1: 0.0 → 0.5 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 4.2 TCR · DART/TCR 0.39× in 2024

Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1's TCR rose 0.5 from 0.0 in 2021 to 0.5 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 4.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.39× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 336411 · Roseville, CA AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 1.3 · 40% of ind

  • DART 0.5 DART
  • RANK #42/107
  • PHOTO Embraer Defense and …
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 0 inj
  • SIZE ~211 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Embraer Defense and Security, Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1 in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1 averages 1.3 TCR (40% of the Target drones, aircraft, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1 TCR series: 2021=0 · 2022=4.2 · 2023=0.6 · 2024=0.5 · BLS 3.3

Where Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1 falls in its industry

390 Target drones, aircraft, manuf establishments

Safer than 59% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #42 safest of 107 Target drones, aircraft, manuf employers in California.

Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1 (211 employees, TCR 1.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 151 employees and a TCR of 1.7 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 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,000 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1
Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1 (211 employees, TCR 1.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 151 employees and a TCR of 1.7

Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems CARO1 has more employees than the Target drones, aircraft, manufacturing median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.7. 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 0.5 0.5 0 1 0
2023 0.6 0.6 0 1 0
2022 4.2 3.0 0 7 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

336411 · CA · Roseville

390 Target drones, aircraft, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 311 employers in Roseville, 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 Embraer Defense and Security, Inc. 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR CA022 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Learjet Inc. 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR MO008 1.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE Zuckerman Heritage Inc. 211 FTE
STATE-SIZE R. Montanez Farms, LLC 211 FTE
STATE-SIZE W J Griffin, Inc. 211 FTE
STATE-SIZE TLF 211 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2032-02121801 4,395 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sutter Valley Hospitals (30003) 4,383 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0206-02621801 3,172 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sutter Roseville Medical Center (110-5001) 3,162 FTE
NAT-TCR Wooster Operations 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR CMCO - Lexington Division - Columbus McKinnon 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Trenchtech Inc 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Kansas Electric, Inc. 1.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Independent School District 2897 211 FTE
NAT-SIZE PL Developments - Clinton plant 211 FTE
NAT-SIZE Sumner Terminal 211 FTE
NAT-SIZE 058 - Sawmill Rd Columbus 211 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.