Data Recovery Case File · Second Fixes & Trade Handoffs · Verify, Then Agree
A Correct Diagnosis From the Customer Still Has to Be Confirmed, and Usually Is
This enquiry arrives with the analysis already done. A drive described as suffering from stiction — "where the read write heads have come into contact with the platter surface and become stuck to it, thus preventing any rotation" — with the added observation that releasing stiction tends to cause head failure, which has happened, requiring head replacement. All of that is accurate, and the right response is to verify it rather than to adopt it or to talk past it.
| Media | External hard drive with heads adhered to the platter surface preventing rotation — release performed with consequent head failure; replacement assembly indicated |
| Reported situation | External drive not rotating · adhesion between heads and platter surface identified as the cause · adhesion subsequently released · head failure following release · replacement of the head assembly identified as required · quotation requested for that work |
| Fault class | Head adhesion released with consequent assembly failure — surface condition following contact and release determining recoverable extent; diagnosis accurate and to be confirmed by inspection |
| Equipment used | Customer diagnosis verified by inspection rather than adopted or disregarded · laminar flow bench inspection with platter surfaces examined for contact tracks before any rotation · matched donor assembly fitted with full stack replacement · imaging in supervised sessions under capped timeouts · findings reported against the customer's own account |
The decode: what he has right, and the question his account does not answer
What stiction actually is: exactly what he says. Heads resting on a stationary platter can bond to the surface, and the bond exceeds what the spindle motor can overcome — so the drive cannot start turning.
Why the surfaces are so effective at holding: both are extremely smooth. Two very flat surfaces in contact, with a microscopic lubricant film between them, adhere strongly, which is why the effect exists at all.
Why his second point is the sophisticated one: he notes that release tends to damage the heads. Separating an adhered head applies force to a component designed to fly rather than to be pulled, and the suspension is easily distorted.
Why that makes head replacement the expected outcome rather than a surprise: the release and the damage are one event. A drive whose stiction has been released is very frequently a drive needing new heads, which he has already concluded.
What his account does not establish, and it is the question that governs the result: the condition of the surfaces. Heads that were adhered were in contact, and whether that contact marked the platters determines what new heads will be able to read.
Why that cannot be inferred from the symptoms: a drive with scored surfaces and a drive with clean ones behave identically before they are opened. Only inspection under filtered air answers it.
Why it matters more than the head question: heads are replaceable and surfaces are not. Marking where the heads rested limits what can be read there regardless of what is fitted.
Why the location of any marking is also relevant: heads park in a designated area. Adhesion occurring at the park position affects a region that holds no user content, whereas adhesion over the recording area does not.
Why his diagnosis should nonetheless be confirmed rather than taken as read: an accurate account can still be an account of something else. Verification costs an inspection that would happen anyway, and agreeing without looking would be a courtesy rather than an assessment.
What the right posture is towards a customer who knows this much: report findings against his own terms. Someone who has diagnosed correctly deserves the surface condition and the park position stated plainly, rather than a general summary.
On the bench
The customer diagnosis was verified by inspection rather than adopted or disregarded — stiction arising where heads resting on a stationary platter bond to it beyond the spindle motor's capacity, both surfaces being extremely smooth with a microscopic lubricant film between them. Release applies force to a suspension designed to fly rather than be pulled, so head damage and release are frequently one event. Surface condition determines recoverable extent and is established only by laminar flow bench inspection.
The outcome
The diagnosis verified rather than adopted, surfaces examined for contact tracks before any rotation, and a matched donor assembly fitted as a full stack. Free assessment, one fixed written figure including VAT, 50% of parts and labour upfront with the balance only on successful recovery. The decode: your account is accurate, including the part about release causing head failure. The question it leaves open is the surfaces — heads are replaceable and platters are not, so where the heads were resting decides the result.
When you already know what is wrong with your drive
Say so in your own terms, as you have, and then ask for the one thing your diagnosis can't cover: the condition of the platter surfaces. Heads that were adhered were in contact, and whether that contact marked the recording determines what new heads will be able to read — which no symptom reveals before the drive is opened. Ask where the adhesion occurred too, since heads park in a designated area holding no user content, and adhesion there is a much better result than adhesion over the recording.
Ask about the surfaces — call Cambridge Data Recovery on 01223 655015; your diagnosis verified rather than adopted, surfaces examined under filtered air before rotation, findings reported in your own terms.
Request a quote online →
Our case files are drawn from genuine enquiries received by our laboratory over the past ten years, anonymised to protect client confidentiality. Each one describes the diagnostic and recovery procedure our engineers apply to that fault, using the equipment listed.