^^
In many countries (especially the UK) the outcome of a court case has just as much to do with the quality of legal representation that can be afforded as it is a matter of evidence.
Sorry for the cynical view, but just providing balance here. The aforementioned RAF jock did not "get off" because he did not carry out the act, or because the evidence was insufficient.
He got off because his costly brief found a legal loophole and applied it.
Again...it was ever thus.
This pilots actions would best be assessed above all else by his peers, given all the available clues.
What a Court of Law says about his flying ability and decision-making is a pretty much irrelevant outwith the legal context.