467 U.S. 797, 808 (1984)
On July 11, 1973, a Boeing 707 aircraft owned by respondent S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines) was flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris when a fire broke out in one of the aft lavatories.1 The fire produced thick black smoke that filled the cabin and cockpit.2 It killed 124 of the 135 persons on board from asphyxiation or toxic gases.3
The aircraft had received a type certificate from the Civil Aeronautics Agency in 1958 after the manufacturer submitted designs, plans, specifications, and performance data.4 Seaboard Airlines originally purchased the plane for domestic use and sold it to Varig Airlines in 1969.5 Varig operated the plane commercially until the accident.6
On October 8, 1968, a DeHavilland Dove aircraft owned by respondent John Dowdle caught fire in midair, crashed, and burned near Las Vegas, Nevada.7 The pilot, copilot, and two passengers were killed.8 The plane had been manufactured in the United Kingdom in 1951, purchased by Air Wisconsin, modified in 1965 with a gasoline-burning cabin heater under a supplemental type certificate issued by the FAA to Aerodyne Engineering Corp., and sold to Dowdle in 1966.9
Following the accidents, Varig Airlines and families of passengers filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.10 They alleged negligence in the type certification of the Boeing 707.11
Dowdle and insurance companies filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act seeking reimbursement for moneys paid for liability coverage on behalf of Dowdle. The district court granted summary judgment for the United States in the Varig action.12 In the Dowdle action the district court entered judgment for respondents.13 The Ninth Circuit remanded for further proceedings.14 After remand the district court again entered judgment for respondents.15
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court in the Varig case and affirmed the district court judgment in the Dowdle case.16 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases in 1983.17
Whether the United States may be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the negligence of the Federal Aviation Administration in certificating the Boeing 707 and DeHavilland Dove aircraft for use in commercial aviation?18
The discretionary function exception is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).19 It bars any claim based upon the exercise or performance, or the failure to exercise or perform, a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.20
No. The FAA's implementation of a spot-check system for certification and its application to these aircraft constitute discretionary functions protected by the exception.21 These choices involved judgments on how to allocate limited resources to achieve air safety goals while balancing practical constraints such as staffing and funding.22 Such regulatory decisions are the type of policy judgments that Congress intended to shield from tort liability under the exception.23
The claims against the United States are barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.24