Maybe time to weigh in here:
True VRS is recoverable, and is not a mysterious death trap. The rotor needs more power at a certain combination of descent and forward speed, usually much more than the engines can deliver.
Lets attack each wive's tale:
1) In VRS, increasing the collective does not make the aircraft fall faster.
2) In a hover, you cannot get VRS until the aircraft has an appreciable rate of descent, usually beyond 700 feet per minute, likely about 1200 fpm or more.
3) In a hover, you can descend vertically without getting VRS.
4) In incipient VRS, you can raise the collective and fly up out of it, if you have enough excess power.
5) At high altitude, it is harder, and takes more descent rate, to get into VRS.
6) Most events people call VRS are actually where they haven't sufficient power to hover, so they settle down and hit the ground and call it "settling with power" and "VRS" and it gets captured that way in accident reports.
None of the above will be believed by most ppruners, because all we have been told about VRS comes from the same flawed source, which says the opposite. The popcorn "aerodynamic" guides we are given are written by old line, experienced IP's (none of them schooled in aero) and have less than 1 gram of true aerodynamic knowledge in them. They are useful, they capture good old school of hard knocks info, of course.
All this being said, there is little wrong with believing the worng stuff, since little of what we now do needs to have straight down descents, yet. However, when we actually get to use helicopters IFR as they can be used, one method will be the 90 degree glideslope to land in an obstructed, congested area. When we do that, the entire helicopter pilot population will scream "VRS" and we will have a hell of a battle explaining all the above, again, until somebody understands!
yet again, see
www.s-92heliport.com/vrs.htm
Let's keep this thread alive until 2100!