>>Users of Australian airspace will note that there is no Runway 02 or 20 in the country, even if the runway direction indicates that it should be so. 01/19 or 03/21 is used instead, whichever is closer to the actual. This originated from an accident many decades ago when 02 was interpreted (fatally) as 20 by a pilot.<<
Sounds like a lysdexic urban legend <g>. Is this really true?
>>I'd be interested to know if the American practice of not using the preceding zero for runways such as 06, has lead to a significant incident or accident.<<
What would they confuse it with, runway 60? We try to keep things simple in America for safety's sake. Of course, we don't always succeed...
I'm always worried about those conditional clearances to taxi onto the runway that you get in many countries: "Behind landing traffic, line up and wait". I've seen this eagerly given as one aircraft is just touching down and another is on fairly short final. You could sure guess wrong in this case.
Perhaps just as bad is the U.S. practice of issuing multiple landing clearances on the expectation that the preceding aircraft will be clear of the runway in time.
One that gets some U.S. crews is "taxi to holding position runway 05". If you haven't flown overseas it sounds a lot like "taxi to hold in position runway 05".
Of course, my favorite taxi clearance is in SIN, "taxi on the greens..."