[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but I honestly don't have any clue how feasable these kinds of jobs are to get. Is it possible to do it without the military?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's very possible. Only problem is the huge cost associated with the training and timebuilding in helos, hence why you see so many ex-mil in the helo field.
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, in my experience, the civilian helicopter market is dominated by civilian (non-military) pilots. One thing that I have noticed is that a civilian who DOES pay the big bucks to get the ratings is more likely to use it. In my experience military helicopter pilots often look for some other career once they get out of the military.
[ QUOTE ]
Another big issue is type of flying. Not as many civilians as military get experience with sling loading, rescue ops, etc. The mil type get all sorts of varying experiences simply because of the nature of the job. Your average helo CFI working up the ladder doesn't receive this.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is true but there also is a flip side to the coin. Back when I was an instrument helicopter instructor I had several newly-discharged helicopter guys come to me to do their civilian instrument rating. These guys had been in the military for anywhwere from eight to twelve years. Yet they had no more hours than I did in my three years! And as a matter of fact some had less! No doubt there is a difference between military and civilian flying and I have no doubt that a military pilot probably experiences more in their one hour than a civvie does in three. But there is no substitute for total time and this can be a factor in the civilian/military discussion. For instance, when an insurance company decress that a pilot must have twenty-five hundred hours to be hired they won't make an exception for a military pilot who only has one thousand hours even if that thousand hours were all combat time in an Apache.
One other important consideration is the type of equipment flown. Civilians will almost ALWAYS start off flying recip equipment. That means throttle twisting, underpowered, sometimes "less than perfect" mechanical condition. I don't care what anyone says, flying ANY type of turbine aircraft is easier than a comparable recip aircraft. Nowadays the initial training for the military is done in Bell 206's. These are excellent aircraft no doubt. But I will bet my bottom dollar that it's a heck of a lot easier for a civvie pilot to go up than a military pilot go down in regards to aircraft quality. In my experience some military pilots will refuse to fly helicopters, or will be quicker to squawk helicopters, than a civilian pilot will. One company I worked for had a pilot who was ex-military and he squawked a helicopter and refused a job because the compass correction card had been lost. We each had our own assigned helicopter and when maintenance costs per hour where computed the military guy's costs were almost three times that of mine and the other two pilots. Now this wasn't because he was tearing up the aircraft. On the contrary he was always coming back from flying with vague "problems" that he experienced while flying. Honestly I don't think anything was ever found. But he was just used to having basically unlimited access to maintenance with (I guess) no problems. This, coupled with the fact that he had to go from a UH-1 to a recip Bell 47G5A (which he made bones about admitting that he hated and didn't trust) kept him always on edge and always worried that it was about to fall to pieces on him.
Now let me clarify my point. I am in no way putting down military pilots. But the fact of the matter is that there are good and bad military and there are good and bad civilian. I have met military pilots who had nothing less than scorn for civilian pilots and I've known civilian pilot who had a chip on their shoulders towards military guys. I'm telling you right now that both attitudes are f****d up.
I know some civilian companies which are run by ex-military and they prefer ex-military pilots. On the other hand I know civilian companies run by civilians and they prefer civilian pilots. In my opinion neither of their attitudes is fair. A pilot should be judged on their abilities at the present not so much what they've done in the past. I would have no problem hiring a qualified military pilot neither would I have a problem hiring a civilian pilot. Both came from unique training and experience backgrounds. Both SHOULD be qualified.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is this. A pilot stands his/her best chance of getting hired because of WHO THEY ARE, not from where they came. Personality and personability CANNOT be overestimated when seeking a job. ATTITUDE is everything. Obviously one has the required qualifications for the job or one wouldn't be applying. So, in my experience, for the successful applicant, WHO THEY ARE is more important than WHERE THEY'VE BEEN. And I believe that this is the case for probably ninety percent of the hiring businesses out there. Or so it would seem in my experience anyway.
) or Fixed-Wing aircraft?? 
