Can you use a STAR for the parallel runway?

The question raised in this thread strikes at a procedural gray area that instrument-rated pilots encounter more often than published guidance clearly addresses: whether a STAR that terminates at or transitions into an approach for one runway can legally be flown when the pilot actually intends to land on the parallel runway. In the specific case cited, the ALTTA9 arrival into Fresno Yosemite International (KFAT) is charted with runway 11L/29R annotations, but with 29R and 11L's ILS/LOC out of service and that runway closed, the pilot would need to transition to the RNAV approach for the parallel runway, 29L, which happens to also use ALTTA as an initial or intermediate fix. The regulatory answer hinges on how STARs are actually constructed and cleared: a STAR is not tied to a single runway or approach in the way many pilots assume. ATC clears aircraft "via the [STAR name] arrival," and separately clears them for a specific approach; the STAR's job is simply to deliver the aircraft to a fix, altitude, and speed profile that feeds multiple possible approach transitions. As long as the STAR's charted fixes, altitudes, and route are flown as published (or as amended by ATC), and the pilot is subsequently cleared for the RNAV 29L approach, there is no regulatory conflict in using the arrival even though its cover page references the other parallel runway's approaches.

For working pilots, particularly those flying into airports with parallel runway configurations (common at busy hubs like KFAT, KSFO, KPHX, and dozens of others), this distinction matters because misreading a STAR as runway-specific can lead to unnecessary radio calls, confusion during approach briefings, or worse, a rejected clearance request when a controller expects the pilot to understand that STARs and approaches are cleared independently. The practical takeaway is that crews should brief the STAR based on its lateral and vertical path to the transition fix, then separately verify which approach they'll be flying and whether that approach's initial fix aligns with where the STAR terminates. When an approach transition (like RNAV 29L starting at ALTTA) shares a fix with the STAR, the transition is almost always seamless and expected by ATC automation and controllers alike; TARGETS and STARS radar systems are built around exactly this kind of fix-based routing.

The lost-communications question is more nuanced. FAR 91.185 governs lost-comms procedures, and the general rule is that a pilot should fly the route assigned in the last ATC clearance, and for the approach, expect to fly the one listed in the flight plan or the one most consistent with the last known ATC intentions. If the STAR was filed or cleared "via ALTTA9 arrival" and the RNAV 29L is the closest logical approach given the known runway closure and NOTAM'd ILS outage, most pilots and check airmen would argue that flying to ALTTA and then executing the RNAV 29L is the reasonable interpretation of 91.185's intent, since 11L/29R's approach is unusable. However, this is exactly the kind of ambiguous scenario where TERPs design and lost-comm decision trees don't perfectly anticipate real-world NOTAM conditions, underscoring why NOTAM review before departure, and building lost-comms contingencies into the briefing, remains essential rather than assuming the STAR's runway annotation dictates lost-comms behavior.

This kind of chart-interpretation debate reflects a broader trend in instrument procedure design: as more airports gain RNAV-based approaches with shared or overlapping transition fixes, the traditional one-STAR-to-one-runway mental model is increasingly outdated. Modern arrivals are frequently designed with common fixes that feed multiple parallel or crossing runway approaches specifically to give ATC flexibility during runway closures, wind shifts, or equipment outages, exactly the scenario described here. Pilots transitioning from legacy ground-based navigation charts to RNAV-heavy environments need to internalize that STARs deliver aircraft to a point in space, not a specific runway threshold, and that approach clearances are the operative authorization for runway assignment. This matters increasingly for Part 91, 135, and airline crews alike as NOTAM-driven runway and navaid outages become a normal part of flying into busier terminal areas, making fluency in STAR-to-approach transition logic, rather than rote runway-number matching, an increasingly critical skill for both normal operations and off-nominal lost-comms scenarios.