Far more civilian pilots have lost their lives since 9/11 operating Hughes, Robinson and Enstrom helicopters here at home than military pilot lives lost in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Without entering into the whole civilian-military debate, it's logic like what's quoted here that makes one read the article at the outset of the thread, and scratch one's head. Are you really attempting to make the case the civilian pilots are better than military, by saying that more civilian pilots die in peacetime than military pilots die in combat? Have you thought that through, at all? Forget the juvenile anatomy-measuring contest; the logic of that single sentence in the context of the article pretty much sums up the value of the article. None.
Formerly the helicopter industry was largely populated only with ex-military pilots, because nobody else had the means to get the experience. Today, at least domestically in the USA, the industry mix is slightly higher in favor of civilians. This doesn't imply that civilian training is better or worse, but only represents the numbers hired...which is always a function of the numbers available. More and more civilian helicopter pilots have become available for employment, and consequently more are hired. The large pool of military aviators that ended up on the job market as Vietnam drew down has largely dwindled. Extended service requirements and better pay have meant fewer military helicopter pilots entering the industry job market, as does the fewer number of helo aviators being trained.
In the end, the primary training source isn't the consideration for a helicopter pilot but the experience, the attitude, and the ability to do the job. In a competitive market for any given job, this could go either way, depending on the individual applying for the job.