context: Sidestepping these cases, Airlog argues that the FAA's actions are not susceptible to policy analysis because they were based on objective scientific standards.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 864 F.2d 1497, 1504
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that the decision regarding the amount of dynamite that would be safe under the circumstances was "governed by objective standards which the government must use due care in following" and is not susceptible to policy analysis
citation_a.sentence: See Glacier Bay, 71 F.3d at 1453-54 (holding that “scientific hydrographic judgment” and “purely scientific considerations” do not involve policy considerations and are not protected by the discretionary function exception); Kennewick Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 880 F.2d 1018, 1031 (9th Cir.1989) (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); see also Arizona Maintenance Co. v. United States, 864 F.2d 1497, 1504 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that the decision regarding the amount of dynamite that would be safe under the circumstances was “governed by objective standards which the government must use due care in following” and is not susceptible to policy analysis).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 71 F.3d 1453, 1453-54
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that "scientific hydrographic judgment" and "purely scientific considerations" do not involve policy considerations and are not protected by the discretionary function exception
citation_b.sentence: See Glacier Bay, 71 F.3d at 1453-54 (holding that “scientific hydrographic judgment” and “purely scientific considerations” do not involve policy considerations and are not protected by the discretionary function exception); Kennewick Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 880 F.2d 1018, 1031 (9th Cir.1989) (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); see also Arizona Maintenance Co. v. United States, 864 F.2d 1497, 1504 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that the decision regarding the amount of dynamite that would be safe under the circumstances was “governed by objective standards which the government must use due care in following” and is not susceptible to policy analysis).