Air carrier Captain reported during arrival on PHX BRUSR 1 STAR they were given a confusing clearance for a visual approach for Runway 8. Flight crew was using RNAV Runway 8 approach which reportedly does not share a common fix with BRUSR 1 STAR to provide continuity, but the ILS Runway approach 8 does. The Captain stated the approaches are so similar, the inbound fixes should be the same.

PHX WX (Weather) day VFR CAVU, on east flow. Aircraft on BRUSR 1 RNAV STAR for Runway 08. ILS [Runway] 8 NOTAMd OTS (Out of Service). Crew loaded, briefed, and planned RNAV GPS Y Runway 8 prior to TOD (Top of Descent), as backup for visual approach, expecting vectors to final as standard between TLMAN and JAMIL. Instead controller, gave an unfamiliar sounding clearance to (paraphrased) “remain on the BRUSR, cleared for the visual approach Runway 8.― Both the First Officer as PF (Pilot Flying) and myself as Captain/PM (Pilot Flying) remarked to each other that that was an unusual sounding clearance in general, that there was no proximate traffic ahead to delay vectoring us towards the runway, and because this STAR and IAP share no common fix. The more commonly used ILS 8 does share JAMIL with the BRUSR however, yet even then vectors are always given in our experience. As we had already called the field in sight and were at the point where a standard rate turn from base to final was required, we just accepted the visual approach clearance, joined the FAC (Final Approach Course) normally without overshoot, and landed normally without any difficulty or ATC query. A less familiar crew, both of us being based at PHX, perhaps with night, WX, etc., might have fared differently. It is especially confusing because JAMIL sits right on the FAC as displayed on the Aircraft navigation display, but it is most assuredly NOT part of the RNAV 8 IAP. Had we done as a crew is trained to do, arm the approach mode and monitor for FAC interception, we would have blown right through the FAC, with a potential loss of separation for [Runway] 7R traffic, of which there was none for us, but commonly are there. Poor design of RNAV GPS Y Runway 8 IAP, in that it shares no common fix with the RNAV STAR, coupled with the controller’s unusual clearance, rather than the typical vectors to final. Recommend the RNAV (GPS) 8 be redesigned to use the same fixes as the ILS 8, both for commonality/familiarity, and to link both to the STAR to prevent an overshoot. As it is structured now, now it is an accident waiting to happen. The RNAV GPS Y Runway 8 should be reconfigured to used the same waypoints of JAMIL and WAZUP as the ILS 8, both for commonality and so that the RNAV STAR can link to the RNAV IAP. Until then, controllers must issue vectors to final. Airports such as LAX are now issuing blanket approach clearances to given runways, because whether ILS, RNP, or RNAV, they all use the same fixes and FACs.