Errors accessing FAA's Pilotweb

Robert M. Gary writes:

Aren't you even curious what its like flying a non-simulated
airplane?

Sure, but not curious enough to spend the time and money required to take a
ride.

All the time you've spent on the simulator you could have easily
earned the money for several flights using that time working in a
coffee shop.

I've spent about 2000 hours flying in the past 36 months. If I had worked
that time at a minimum-wage job in a coffee shop, I would have earned roughly
enough by now to pay for just 40-50 hours in a real aircraft--and that ignores
the cost of getting a license to fly in the first place. If you count the
cost of getting a license, I would not yet have flown my first hour in real
life as a licensed pilot.

That price/performance ratio is almost inexpressibly bad. As a result, and
given that there is no sine qua non for me in real flight that bars the use of
simulation, simulation gives me orders of magnitude more "bang for the buck"
in terms of enjoyment. In fact, it's one of the cheapest hobbies and
leisure-time activities that I can think of.

Additionally, there are some things that are possible in simulation that would
not be possible for me in real life (such as, say, piloting a 747
cross-country), which further argues in favor of simulation. I've listed some
of the key advantages of simulation here before.

At least that's the way I think.

Unfortunately, the numbers don't work out.

You could probably earn
enough money in less than a month redirecting your simulation time to
a coffee shop and then would at least know what you are missing.

A month in a coffee shop would pay for about an hour of flight in a real
airplane. Compare 55 hours of work at minimum wage for one hour flying to 40
minutes of work for 55 hours of flying, and there is absolutely no
contest--simulation wins hands-down.