"Limiting the max attainable alpha is a poor substitute for proper training".
...and yet, it is done by any modern AFCS in any modern airliner, such as the one you fly and is shown in your avatar photo....Or is it only good, when it is electronically achieved and pompously dubbed "flight envelope protection"?
Mortality rates in VLA flying come mostly from poorly prepared owners/operators that weren't, precisely, "properly trained" be it either because they have far too much money and think that physics are "boring" and do not apply to them or because they were lead to that perilous stance by less-than-scrupulous vendors who want to portray flying as "fun" and "easy" in an attempt to not lose sales with full encompassing flying syllabus that might be perceived as "bummers" in the ever-so-light current times.
If anything, it makes even more sense to flight-controls-restrict these kind of planes, who are likely to be operated by less than optimally prepared pilots, than to electronically-restrict an airliner that is operated by fully trained pilots, many of us with full degrees in Aerodynamics.
As for your objections to the in-water operation I can't add much, since I never operated an amphibious A/c.
However, I would like to point out that, although it it is true that it has no wing sponsons, it is fitted with in-body ones.
As for their efficiency in x-winds, let's leave that for the designers and test-pilots keeping in mind that strong x-winds are more prone to limit operations on account of off-limits water surface conditions than flare and landing maneuvering.