DB please bear in mind that my comments were only to counter Crab's constant banging on about how wonderful everything in the mil is including the pilots, and how crap it is in civvy. Do you think that should go unchallenged? (In which case you've just pinned your colours to the mast!).
I learnt to fly FW in the UAS. Some of the instructors were excellent. One or two were appalling. Most were, as you would expect, average.
I then did a 9 month cadet scheme with Bristow, at the time nearly all the instructors were ex mil. Same applied.
Now we have mostly civvy-born instructors and I don't see a difference in quality, it is the same old same old.
You may well be proud of having passed your mil course (why wouldn't you be!) but trust me, you are no better a pilot as a result of it than lots of folk from civvy backgrounds. I speak with the experience of being a TRI/TRE for many years in a "mixed race" company. ie I have trained and tested many folk both mil and non - mil. I haven't noticed a difference although of course each group has a wide variation.
Well actually to be honest there are perhaps a few civvy folk who really should have found a different career and yes they would have been weeded out from the mil, in the same way that they would have been weeded out from a company-sponsored course such as the one I did with Bristow. It is the advent of the self-funded that has introduced a small minority of unsuitable people, but then again it has also given us many highly competent people too.
Anyway, surely that is enough banging on about mil vs civvy but that applies to both sides!