The researchers had first detected this hole approximately 8 years ago by tests done at the South Pole itself. Because the satellite that normally gives ozone levels had not reported any such hole and the researchers could not believe that the satellite's figures could be incorrect. It took 8 years of testing before they felt confident enough to dispute the satellite's figures. The implication is that use of such a simulator is risky, which is surely true. However, as is so often the case, we must also examine the risk of not using the simulator.
Pilots flying simulators frequently practice maneuvers which are quite risky in a real aircraft.
A common example is loss of power in one engine at a critical moment on takeoff. All we can do is make the simulator as good as state of the art permits, and improve it whenever we are subjected to one of the expensive lessons Little refers to. Little also comments on the shuttle simulator. There, I would guess, the critical issue is the cost of using the real thing as opposed to cost of the simulator. Again, the simulator is as good as practical, and is improved as more data are gathered.