This is a direct report from the BBC regarding the Judge summing up to the Jury.
Judge Edis told the jury that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight.
"You have heard a great deal of evidence from Mr Hill, onlookers and experts to explain what took place," he said.
"It is for you to decide what of that evidence you find helpful and persuasive and what you find unconvincing."
How can you PROVE that Cognitive impairment had not affected the pilot? I suggest that the Jury had no choice to find Mr Hill not guilty based on this direction from the Judge.
Whether this direction was correct in legal terms, then I will leave it to m'learned friends to decide.
Summing up from Prosecution/Defence Barristers below.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47419415
Defence Aviation Med expert below;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47324182