Aircraft sub-assemblies and parts manufacturing · North Carolina

United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office

Charlotte, NC · ~428 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
0.0
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office runs at 0% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Aircraft sub-assemblies and parts manufacturing workplace, earning a grade C.

United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office: 0.0 TCR = 0% of Aircraft sub-assemblies and parts manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office safety composite

United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 100% 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

81/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 100% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 80% 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%).

United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office held a steady TCR band

United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2018. Peak filing year was 2016 at 0.0 TCR.

2016=0.0 · 2017=0.0 · 2018=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 336413 · Charlotte, NC AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade C · TCR 0.0 · 0% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #0/14
  • PHOTO Goodrich Corporation…
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 0 inj
  • SIZE ~428 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Goodrich Corporation (Jamestown ND) (0.1 TCR gap)

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

United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office averages 0.0 TCR (0% of the Aircraft sub-assemblies and parts manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office TCR series: 2016=0 · 2017=0 · 2018=0 · BLS 3.3

Where United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office falls in its industry

650 Aircraft sub-assemblies and pa establishments

Safer than 100% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #0 safest of 14 Aircraft sub-assemblies and pa employers in North Carolina.

United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office (428 employees, TCR 0.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 130 employees and a TCR of 1.9 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 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office
United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office (428 employees, TCR 0.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 130 employees and a TCR of 1.9

United Technology Aerospace Systems- Corp Office has more employees than the Aircraft sub-assemblies and parts manufa median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.9. 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
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

336413 · NC · Charlotte

650 Aircraft sub-assemblies and parts manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 2,058 employers in Charlotte, NC · 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 Goodrich Corporation (Jamestown ND) 0.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR NGDS-R955 0.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR BE Aerospace Inc (WinstonSalem NC Fairchild 0.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Rockwell Collins Simulation & Training Solutions LLC (Sterling VA) 0.1 TCR
STATE-SIZE AAF Flanders Smithfield 428 FTE
STATE-SIZE Pinetops - 3022 NC 43 North 428 FTE
STATE-SIZE 2576-544 428 FTE
STATE-SIZE Maxwell Foods Goldsboro Hog Farms 427 FTE
CITY-NEAR 1101-Carolinas Medical Center (1101) 8,444 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0001-Carolinas Medical Center 8,032 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4795-AA-CLT-CHARLOTTE-CLT-TRML 7,295 FTE
CITY-NEAR Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center 4,973 FTE
NAT-TCR AZ-01 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR CT-02 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR NJ-05 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR TX-01 0.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE MS - Ft. Polk, LA - 1F1LA 428 FTE
NAT-SIZE Badger Meter Milwaukee 428 FTE
NAT-SIZE DNE 428 FTE
NAT-SIZE Otis Elevator Company-OSC 428 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: 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.