determination by an FAA official that a helicopter conformed to a certificate requirement was not discretionary). “If it were not so, the protection of § 2680(a) would fail at the time it would be needed[.]” Dalehite, 346 U.S. at 36, 73 S.Ct. 956. Here, where the FMCSA made judgments on (1) whether Sky Express had submitted sufficient evidence of corrective action to warrant a follow-up compliance review and (2) whether such a review could reasonably and fairly be conducted without an extension of the 45-day period for establishing fitness, the FMCSA was exercising discretion within the meaning of the FTCA. The FMCSA may have taken certain “calculated risks,” but it did so for a governmental purpose pursuant to a governing regulation. See Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 820, 104 S.Ct. 2755 (<HOLDING>). The district court thus properly concluded
recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver 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 application of a spotcheck system to a particular aircraft was a discretionary function 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