I think one of the cultural problems is paranoid secrecy, usually to protect senior staffs.
I recently asked for a document relating to a fatal crash. Given the Coroner agreed, and is on record, there had been a Pre-Inquest Hearing (PIH) to determine who would be witnesses and what would be discussed, I asked why a certain report had been withheld (having established it wasn’t even submitted to the Coroner).
MoD replied that there had NOT been a PIH and the subject report (and the investigation that produced the report) did not exist/had not taken place. I replied, quoting the report and naming the four immediate recipients plus the Investigating Officer, only for MoD to deny its existence again. They repeated this to families, who also have the report; which merely alienates and reinvigorates them.
Lacking this report, the Inquest immediately went off at a tangent (a direction determined by MoD, with no family input) and little of substance or relevance was discussed in 4 days. Thus, the Court was grossly misled and the underlying failures that led to the BoI’s contributory factors remain uncorrected, with the MAA studiously ignoring them. Probably because the above report demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that all contributory factors were identified up to 8 years in advance, and staffs instructed not to correct them, to save money. So, the Coroner DID have “Service” advisors, but they toed the MoD party line and colluded in misleading him (because none told the "whole truth"). This is common practice. I’d prefer Coroners to have independent advisors; perhaps reputable retired staffs with proven experience. So, no MAA, on both counts!