I make no comment whatsoever about the specific case under discussion. That is intentional.
Heli-cal
The verdict of the jury absolutely confirms that they were certain that the pilot was not guilty as charged, despite your ludicrous statement.
Your bold assertion is incorrect; you misunderstand the criminal trial process.
The burden of proving a defendant's guilt is on the prosecution and the standard of proof required is high. In England & Wales, the judge directs a jury in these or very similar terms:
The prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty. He does not have to prove his innocence. In a criminal trial the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is always on the prosecution.
How does the prosecution succeed in proving the defendant's guilt? The answer is - by making you sure of it. Nothing less than that will do.
If after considering all the evidence you are sure that the defendant is guilty, you must return a verdict of 'Guilty'.
If you are not sure, your verdict must be 'Not Guilty'.
NB: Being "certain that the defendant is not guilty as charged" (your proposition) is not the criterion.
eg A jury considers that the defendant is probably guilty: Verdict = Not Guilty.
eg A jury is almost sure the defendant is guilty: Verdict = Not Guilty.
In common parlance, it is often referred to as giving a defendant the benefit of the doubt. In law it means that the prosecution has not proved guilt to the required standard.
In Scotland there is a third verdict available of ‘Not Proven’. That is not an option in England & Wales nor, as far as I’m aware, in any other jurisdiction.
He should sue for false arrest, imprisonment and malicious prosecution!
You don't say why you think the pilot would have grounds for each or any of those claims.
The fact that someone is subsequently acquitted does not of itself mean that the arrest was unlawful.
Nor, where he is remanded in custody for any period pending trial, that he was unlawfully imprisoned.
Nor that it was a malicious prosecution.
FL