Originally Posted by markojp
Barry, I'm kind of mystified about your references to PSIA stance width standards. As far as I know, have been taught, and teach, the stance width is 'functional' and may vary with conditions. I don't know that there's any difference in 'avalanche prone' area ski technique as applied in the US vs Europe. Your suggestion about using hockey slides and pivot slips, progressive edging and turn shape are pretty much identical to things we would teach steep terrain skiing in the US as well. Are you a PSIA certified instructor? Not that it matters terribly much, but it doesn't seem your suppositions about the PSIA are entirely accurate.
Mark, I am a PSIA certified Instructor and I was not endorsing the premise that a narrow stance is accurate, if you spend the time to read the dialogue that has taken place over the previous posts you would see that I have taken the position you just made. I am unaware of any "suppositions" about PSIA standards that I have made that could make you "mystified". I just came to the conclusion that I was going nowhere with GordonFreeman and that it was time to let him enjoy his understanding, albeit wrong as it is.
I just attended the Rocky Mountain Mini Accademy 3 day clinic in Vail and was blessed enough to ski with Jonathan Balou and 8 other peers. Jonathan was one of the Examiners who passed me at Cert II a few years ago. I am fully aware of "functional stance".
I personally can't imagine what the basis and outcome expectations for skiing with a glove squeezed between your knees are, unless we are going back to straight skis.
Mark, try reading the post you are quoting me from and see if you can determine my acceptance of GordonFreemans intent with subtle advice for a progression that will actually work in the terrain he is indicating. Also note my pointer about "skiing on eggs", which would be counter to a narrow stance in the steeps.