a mandatory-statute, regulation or policy, we next consider whether the decision at issue is one Congress intended to protect from liability. In this case, the government’s decision to contract out air traffic control services was based on budgetary concerns, as well as a desire to reopen smaller air traffic control locations — both of which are clearly policy decisions. Thus, the discretionary function exemption protects the government from liability for claims premised on the lack of training, oversight, or qualifications of air traffic controllers, since the government acted within its discretion to contract those responsibilities out to Midwest. Cf. United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Kirchmann, 8 F.3d at 1276-77 (holding that
holding that the faas application of a spotcheck system to a particular aircraft was a discretionary function holding that the discretionary function exception to the federal tort claims act precluded tort actions based on the alleged negligence of the federal aviation administration in failing to check certain thing in the process of certificating the aircraft for use in commercial aviation holding that the faas alleged negligence in failing to check certain specific items in the course of certificating a specific aircraft as part of a spotcheck program involved calculated risks but fell squarely within the discretionary function exception holding that actions against the faa for its alleged negligence in certificating aircraft for use in commercial aviation are barred by the discretionary function exception of the federal tort claims act id at 821 104 sct 2755 because the faas decisions as to the manner of enforcing regulations is plainly a discretionary activity id at 819 21 104 sct 2755 recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver