It's funny, really, to hear all the theoretical discussions of SWP/VRS. Those of us who've actually gotten into true VRS know (like Ross and "Hughes 500" found out) that VRS can be pretty...let's call it "anxiety-producing" since we pilots don't like to admit that something was scary.
Let's be honest, if you get into actual VRS below 500 feet you are going to crash.
On the other hand, SWIP ("settling with insufficient power") is probably more recoverable due to the fact that the rotor is still behaving in a conventional, predictable manner. All you need to do is get through ETL and you're flying again. But does it matter?
The trouble is, the line between SWIP and SWVRS is a hazy, indistinct one. The former can turn into the latter in a heartbeat. It matters not whether you think your a/c is more susceptible to one or the other. Operationally, the technique used to avoid both is the same.
And that is? Simple really. Pilots who find themselves on approach to an LZ with very low airspeed and power applied (i.e. non-autorotative) better be on their toes. You better know where the wind is coming from, and you better be super-attentive to the cues coming from the ship.
I absolutely hate downwind, back-below-ETL approaches. In the course of my career (60,000 landings, conservatively), I've had to make a few when no other alternative was available. They make me very uncomfortable. And I hope I never do get comfortable doing them. Because I never want to be sitting there thinking, "Is this just SWIP or true VRS?" If that thought ever crosses my mind, it means that I've screwed-up, big time. For whatever reason (luck?) I've yet to think it.