Actually, they now have systems designed to detect wind shear.
But, one cannot consider the lack of a system (including software) to perform a function as having the software contribute to a failure caused by the lack of that system.
That’s kind of like saying “I turned into the wrong driveway and hit a tree I didn’t have”.
Yes, and as I thought about my next response, I wanted to say what I've neglected to say so far. I recognize that the airline industry has an excellent record and there are fantastic processes in place to correct problems that are discovered. IN a
robot ethics interview I even suggested that one day there should be such processes for robots. One of the easiest scenarios to imagine (well - given the movie I, Robot and others - lots of robot scenarios are easy to imagine - but pin to the real world of today) - there is already pressure to allow autonomous vehicles loose on the roads - with some models already capable of some autonomous functions (like parking) right off the lot. What if one goes astray and runs through a crowd? You'd want a rapid response team collecting the pieces and asap determining the risk that it could happen again - certainly learn what went wrong and fix it.
We all learn from hindsight (it's the fool who doesn't). On the meta-level, we can look at the wind shear example and think what might be done in the future - not to wag a finger at the excellent job that's been done in that industry - but in the spirit of it's never unfashionable to improve.
Learning software at the R&D end could today, write improved algorithms that would deal with wind shear problems. And while we're at it - it's still quite dangerous to land in some circumstances, with rules for such things as max. safe shear (and that only covers when you know it's there). So, it's just no so that there's no more room for improvement, just on that one factor.