we have held that the FAA’s role in the safety and certification process requires policy analysis. In Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. United States, 742 F.2d 502 (9th Cir.1984), we addressed alleged FAA negligence in connection with aircraft certification. In that case, aircraft owners claimed that the FAA had negligently issued an STC and other approvals. See id. at 503. In a sequence of events that is strikingly similar to the circumstances here, the FAA issued an STC, later discovered safety defects in the modified aircraft, and ultimately issued an airworthiness directive that led the modified aircraft to be grounded. See id. at 503-04. The suit was barred by the discretionary function exception. See id. at 504-05. Two years later, in Proctor v. Un 0 F.2d 1018, 1031 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Arizona Maintenance Co. v. United
recognizing that a clause in an insurance policy was susceptible to a construction in favor of the insured but that such a construction would be unreasonable absurd and produce results never intended or contemplated by the parties holding that the decision not to remove materials during canal construction was based not on policy judgments but on technical scientific engineering considerations and thus is not susceptible to policy considerations holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge holding that scientific hydrographic judgment and purely scientific considerations do not involve policy considerations and are not protected by the discretionary function exception holding that arkansas privilege law and public policy considerations prohibit ex parte interviews