Quote:
"It is not proven that the man had begun a task that was of "substantial importance to flight safety" stated the court.
Quote:
When he walked out of the plane to inspect it, he was met by police who conducted an alcohol control.
Hmm. I'd think that a pre-flight walk around would be of substantial importance to flight safety.
He hadn't begun a pre-flight walk around according to the article, I quote myself from my previous post:
"
Det står, enligt Attunda tingsrätt, klart att mannen var för berusad för att få flyga planet. Men för att kunna fällas krävs, utöver överskriden promillehalt, också att han utförde en uppgift ”av väsentlig betydelse för flygsäkerheten”.
Om han hade påbörjat säkerhetsinspektionen hade han fällts för flygfylleri, enligt rätten. Han har dock själv uppgett att han bara gick ut för att han såg poliserna komma."
Which translated would be:
According to the court of Attund it is clear that the man was to intoxicated to fly the plane. But to be convicted he had to, apart from being over the legal limit, have performed a task "of significant importance to flying/air security".
Had he started the security inspection he had been convicted for drunk flying (
my own translation 
), said the court. But he himself stated that he only went out because he saw the police approaching."
What the article says is that the pilot has not been proven to have begun the inspection, but rather that he left the aircraft to meet the policemen. Therefore it has not been proven a preflight inspection had begun and the court judged there was not enough to convict him.
The article in itself actually says "När han gick ut ur planet för att inspektera det möttes han av polis som skulle genomföra en nykterhetskontroll." which means: "When he left the plane to inspect it he was met by police who were to conduct a test looking for alcohol".
But further down it says:
"Om han hade påbörjat säkerhetsinspektionen hade han fällts för flygfylleri, enligt rätten. Han har dock själv uppgett att han bara gick ut för att han såg poliserna komma."
"If he had begun the safety inspection he had been convicted for "drunk flying", according to the court. But he himself has stated that he only left because he saw the police coming".
So from what I can tell the court has decided that in order to perform a task "of substantial importance tp flight safety" you would have to have begun a preflight inspection (or I guess something like start-up procedures, even though that's my guess and not something stated in the article). Since it can not be proven in this case he had begun an inspection, the court has decided to free him.
As stated above he has lost his job and license (and as I understand it did so long before the court had ruled) so there should be no risk of him ever flying again regardless.
It also says at the bottom of the article that the Swedish Pilot's association (Svensk Pilotförening) are pleased with the courts rule, even though they state that they do not defend his actions they find the legal ruling to be sound.