Practice bomb plops into Md. tavern parking lot
By The Associated Press
Published: Friday, Aug. 30, 2013, 5:48 p.m.
SUDLERSVILLE, Md. — An electronic failure may be to blame for a practice bomb that was dropped from a jet onto a tavern's parking lot, a Maryland National Guard official said Friday.
An A-10 Warthog jet from the 104th Fighter Squadron in the 175th Wing was returning from a training mission Thursday night to Warfield Air National Guard Base in Middle River when the inert device was dropped, guard spokesman Lt. Col. Charles Kohler said. The guard has grounded the aircraft while it investigates.
Kohler didn't yet know exactly what device it was, but said it is made to fly like a 500-pund bomb, but weighs much less.
“This is an unfortunate incident and we're very lucky that no one was hurt. Safety is a top priority in all operations,” Kohler said.
A customer at Darlene's Tavern in Sudlersville came in from outside saying he thought a car in the parking lot was on fire, said owner Darlene Hurley. The car was covered in dust and stones and a few feet away was a 3-foot deep hole, she said. They called 911.
Police officers dug in the hole and when they spotted the fins of the device, they called in the fire marshal's bomb squad, Hurley said.
Bomb technicians determined that it was a practice aerial bomb and the device was turned over to the National Guard, the fire marshal's office said.
“It could have been a whole lot worse. It landed about 100 feet from the building,” Hurley said noting that there are propane tanks nearby. “It could have been really, really bad. Thank God everyone was OK.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- California man named as bitcoin creator denies involvement
- Former National Security Agency contractor Snowden’s leaks to cost billions, take years to fix
- El Nino could bring relief to U.S.
- Shuster plans oversight for DUI program
- ‘Senior officers should not do that,’ Army leader says in pleading guilty to misconduct charges
- Sex-crimes prosecutor accused in groping
- Crisis stymies Obama getaway
- Mummified remains found in foreclosed home
- ‘Drug czar’ cleared to lead Border Patrol
- Traffic cameras rejected in Ohio ruling
- 18-year-old loses suit seeking parents’ support