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.

Narrative

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."