In the US it is a “sportplane”. In the rest of the world, it would be a “microlight” or similar term. It could also be called an oversized ultralight.
I got my start in aviation in ultralights and slightly larger homebuilt aircraft. The amphibious ones have always been problematic and more prone to problems than the land only variety. There is also the problem that amphibs require learning two different landing environments - land AND water - which require noting different details and making decision accordingly.
The ICON A5 has some very nice features on the surface - the angle of attack indicator, for example, could be very useful, and there is definitely some merit in full-plane parachutes, stall resistant airframes, and so on - but all of them have weight. How to get all that stuff on the airframe, and still allow enough capacity for people? Composites, that’s how, but composites can have issues, you can’t detect defects as readily as in wood or metal. How is the manufacturing process for this aircraft? If there have been prior accidents did they involve airframe failure?
I don’t have an issue with the Rotax engine - I’ve flown behind several varieties of Rotax. They’re not certified in the same manner as the venerable Continental or Lycoming engines, but for that weight/class they work fine especially when properly maintained.
Here’s the problem - as noted these models are aggressively marketed as little miracle machines. They’re not. They ARE easy to fly… when conditions are excellent. Conditions are not always excellent. What qualifies as “hazardous conditions” in these very small airplanes is not always obvious to those inexperienced with them, including pilots with experience in larger aircraft. I once was among a group of ultralighters who cautioned an experienced general aviation pilot used to larger, heavier airplanes that the conditions he wanted to take his new “sportplane” up in were actually more than his new toy could handle. He poo-poo’ed us, then when he got to the runway and was almost flipped by a gust called us for help and a group of us helped walk his mini-cub back to the hangar. Size really does matter. There is also the problem “what do you do when things go wrong”. While training does factor into this, so does experience.
The result is that you have wealthy people who buy these aircraft and get basic flight training, which is fine, then proceed into circumstances that exceed their abilities. Not their aircraft’s abilities (although on the very light end of aircraft there are problems with that, too) but the pilot’s abilities.
Or, as is sometimes said, a fool and his money are soon flying more airplane than he can handle.
An ICON A5 flown in a conservative, cautious manner is (I presume - I don’t have personal knowledge or experience of one) a fine aircraft and reasonably safe for what it is. The problem is people who don’t fly conservatively. Aggressive folks - the sort likely to make it big on the stock market, or in sales, or do well in medical school, or as professional sports guys - like to push the limits a bit. Combine that with limited flight experience and things can get ugly.
Sportplanes ARE fun - even after I was licensed to fly bigger, faster aircraft I still loved flying them - but they are limited. If you don’t fly within the limits you can be maimed or killed by them. There is no forgiveness in physics.
In the case of the Cory Lidle crash, the problem wasn’t the aircraft, it was the people. The people got themselves and the aircraft into a situation that ended badly. I have friends who fly that exact same airplane as do so without problem - but they also would not have been flying a Cirrus through an artificial canyon (or a natural one) in that manner. The one guy had less than 100 hours flight experience, and the other had no mountain flying experience, which might have saved their bacon as the situation, despite being in relatively flat terrain, was more like mountains due to all the high rise buildings around.
I don’t know at this point what happened with Mr. Halladay, but it would not surprise me if this was more a mistake on the pilot’s part than an inherent flaw in the aircraft.