Yet it remains true that there are problems at sea that even Abby might not be able to fix, superwomen though she may be. Likewise, it is simply not possible to carry spares on a 36 ftoot boat for every possible thing that might break.

In any case, at this point we don't know anything about what issues the boat had, other than what little has been said in the mainstream media (who almost always get things wrong). Hence it is rather pointless to speculate whether the captain could or could not have fixed it. Or, whether in the same situation Abby might have been able to do better.

You apparently don't grasp the advantages of having a sat phone in this kind of situation. No, you would not want to "Ask someone back home to dial 911?" You would call the appropriate U.S. Coast Guard Rescue Coordination Centers (RCC). In this case that would be RCC Alameda at (510)437-3700. The RCCs are responsible for coordinating all marine rescue activities in their assigned regions. If you read the accounts of the Rebel Heart rescue closely, you would have noted that the agencies credited with the rescue were the California ANG PJs, the US Navy ship, and the USCG. The Alameda RCC undoubtedly coordinated the whole show.

Note: for Canadian RCCs, see Canadian Coast Guard Rescue Centres. If you mistakenly call the wrong RCC (US or Canadian), don't worry. They work closely together, and will make sure your distress message goes to the most appropriate assets. Likewise for other international areas.

Sat phones and EPIRBs each have their advantages, and are highly complimentary. The advantage of the EPIRB is it's simplicity. In an emergency you just activate it and in continuously sends out a distress message with your position and vessel identification. The simplicity is also it's disadvantage, in that there is no other info regarding the nature of your emergency.

The huge advantage of a sat phone is that it allows two way communication. You can explain your problem in detail, which can greatly aid whoever the RCC assigns to help you.

In a medical emergency such as this, with a sat phone you can talk to an MD ashore, who may be able to advise you of the best way to deal with the illness or injury. They may even be able to help you sort out whether it is really an emergency at all. There have been many instances of dangerous, complex, and expensive rescues launched for what turned out to be non-emergency medical situations.

In non medical situations, a sat phone can enable you to communicate the severity of your emergency. Do you need help right this instant? Or are things stable enough to wait until daylight or better weather, when the rescue will be much safer for all concerned?

An EPIRB is all or nothing. A sat phone allows nuance. Smart sailors carry both.

Someone once said "It isn't so much the ocean that is dangerous...rather it's all the hard bits around the edges!"

Lost shipping containers are becoming a bit of an offshore hazard.
Some of them can float for a long time and can be hard to see.
You really don't want to sink your boat hitting a huge steel box with sharp corners which is drifting in the ocean.

Edit
Sorry, I went slightly offthread here.

Several years ago I was helping a friend move his newly purchased sailboat from the Boston area to Newport RI. Its not an off-shore trip by any means; mainly a coastal adventure. Despite this fact, we had weather early on and my friend got seasick and was useless for the first day. Second day he recovered but the engine on the sailboat crapped out and - of course - there was no wind so we were drifting and dreaming for almost a full day. Stayed over a night to get the engine fixed and now on day 4 we made an approach to Newport. In an attempt to shave some minutes - minutes not hours - my friend - who - by the way - was a decent sailor and navigator and was familiar with the area - "cut the buoys" that mark the Brenton Reef off Newport. In any case, as we were sailing thru "the dumplings" and I could see the jagged rocks just below the surface of the water I thought to myself... I can teach someone just about anything except GOOD JUDGEMENT ...

It's curious that we so quickly began to blame or defend the parties in the disaster even without all the facts. Why is that? Is it because we think they've wasted our tax dollars? they were bad parents?

I suppose one issue here is different levels of acceptable risk. Some people wouldn't take a baby on a long boat trip. Some people wouldn't take a baby on a boat. Some people wouldn't get on a boat. I know one person who refuses to drive because it's too scary and dangerous. Where do we draw the line?

The story seems to have faded from the public view. The PJs who actually did the rescue held a press conference. It is available on-line at Video: Guardian Angels from the Rebel Heart Search. It has recieved surprisingly little attention. Probably because it does not reinforce the "call CPS" meme.

It is interesting to listen to the whole thing. The PJs, flight crew and consulting physician are overall quite complimentary regarding the family and their preps for the voyage. The press often seem to be asking leading questions, looking for some dirt. They don't get any. Perhaps that is why press conference has not been more publicized, and the whole story has faded?

The rescue crew also make the point that they use these missions as training for their real role, which is combat SAR. One makes the point that they would spend the same budget if they were doing training missions in Monteray Bay. They also note that this is not the furthest out to sea that they have rescued people. But the other cases have been mostly foreign sailors off of large ships. One comments that "it is nice to rescue an American".

Meanwhile, over on Cruiser's Forum (a hangout for serious sailors) they've started a tongue in cheek thread on Reasons to Ban Children From Cruising. It is well worth a look. Other threads on Cruisers Forum have been largely (though not entirely) supportive, though being serious sailors they've already started to analyze in minute detail every aspect of the voyage.

Eric and Charlotte have promised to tell the whole story, once they've had a chance to rest a bit. They've made a couple of comments on their blog. The recent entry on Charlottes Blog shows an example of the kind of disgusting comments that some people have chosen to send them.

When I was doing SAR, we frequently called upon helos flying out of Davis Monathans AFB in Tucson,who normally flew routine missions out to the numerous missile silos ringing Tucson-pretty routine stuff. They relished, and enjoyed, the challenges of a night hoist operation out of a rocky canyon, and, yes, it was all chargeable to training.

I wonder what the sea time of many of the vociferous critics amounts to? I have just enough experience to realize that life at sea differs from land based routines. Land lubbers should sit quietly and learn.

The press,looking for dirt? Shocked, shocked,I tell you....

Interesting read, but even she waited til the kid was 3 before doing long trips.

Well, here's an interesting update to the story. The family is suing the sat phone company for cutting off their service at the time of the rescue, despite the bill having been paid up.

The part that makes me chuckle is that the sat phone company is named "Whenever Communications LLC". That name just doesn't sound like a Johnny-on-the-spot kind of crew. Kind of like getting an AED from "We'll Get Around To It When We Can, Inc.".

Very interesting to see how this pans out since the sat phone company, Whenever Communications LLC, isn't the service provider, just the reseller. http://www.satellitephonestore.com/

There is some case law involving negligence that might be relevant, but IANAL, so I'm not sure how this is going to turn out.
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Mor-Off/Negligence.html

FWIW, I've had a number of pager companies go belly up on me and the reseller never notified me, so it may be industry practice for the resellers not to notify the end user that they no longer have service.