Research Report on U‑Space Digital Air Traffic Management System Construction and Large‑Scale Operation Control Path for Unmanned Aircraft
Research Compilation Entities: Buckhouse Intelligent Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute, Buckhouse Global Low‑Altitude Economy Industry Network, Buckhouse China Low‑Altitude Economy Industry Network, Buckhouse International Low‑Altitude Economy Cooperation Network, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Manufacturing Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Flight Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Support Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Infrastructure Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Industry Supporting Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Cross‑Boundary Integration Platform
Abstract
Against the backdrop of large‑scale implementation of the global low‑altitude economy, unmanned aircraft have seen continuous expansion of application scales in scenarios including urban logistics, urban air mobility, inspection and mapping, emergency rescue, and cultural‑tourism performances. The traditional air traffic management system designed for manned aircraft cannot meet the demands of massive, low‑latency, high‑density and distributed unmanned aircraft operations. Originated from the EU SESAR Programme, the U‑Space digital air traffic management system adopts digitalization and automation as its core to build a low‑altitude traffic management paradigm adapted to large‑scale unmanned aircraft operations, and has become a vital reference framework in the field of global low‑altitude management and control. This report systematically sorts out the theoretical connotation and four‑tier service architecture of the U‑Space system as well as its global construction practices. It analyzes five major practical constraints for large‑scale unmanned aircraft operations, namely airspace resources, communication‑surveillance, conflict resolution, regulations and standards, and industrial collaboration. From five dimensions including top‑level institutional design, digital air traffic management technical base, multi‑subject collaborative operation mechanism, phased implementation path, and risk prevention & control plus security resilience development, this report studies the construction scheme of digital air traffic management adapted to large‑scale unmanned aircraft operations. It conducts in‑depth analysis on key propositions such as localized evolution of U‑Space concepts, multi‑service‑provider collaborative architecture, digital twin airspace, communication‑sensing integrated infrastructure, cross‑domain data interaction and emergency response system. Meanwhile, it researches and judges future industrial development trends, providing theoretical references and practical path guidance for the construction of China’s domestic low‑altitude digital air traffic management system and the large‑scale commercial operation of unmanned aircraft.
Keywords: U‑Space; Digital Air Traffic Management; Unmanned Aircraft; UTM (Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management); Large‑Scale Operation; Low‑Altitude Airspace; Low‑Altitude Economy; Conflict Resolution
1. Introduction
1.1 Research Background
The global low‑altitude economy maintains rapid growth, and unmanned aircraft are transitioning from demonstration‑oriented trials to regular commercial operations. According to public industrial statistics, the global inventory of civil unmanned aircraft exceeded 9.5 million units in 2025, among which the proportion of aircraft capable of beyond visual line‑of‑sight (BVLOS) operations keeps rising. BVLOS businesses such as urban logistics delivery, eVTOL manned flight tests, urban security inspection, long‑distance power and oil‑gas pipeline inspection are developing rapidly. The peak number of simultaneously online unmanned aircraft in single cities is climbing fast, rendering high‑density cluster operations a realistic demand.
The traditional civil aviation ATM (Air Traffic Management) system is designed for manned aircraft. Reliant on manual voice command and centralized control, it is limited in processing capacity, response latency and operation cost, and cannot cope with scenarios where tens of thousands of unmanned aircraft operate simultaneously. Mass‑volume unmanned aircraft feature low flight altitude, flexible flight trajectories, short single‑unit flight duration, scattered operators and diverse aircraft types. Without a unified digital air traffic management base, multiple risks may easily emerge including airspace conflicts, unauthorized flight interfering with civil aviation, ground personal and property losses, and air‑defense security hazards.
Under the Single European Sky SESAR framework, the European Union put forward the U‑Space digital air traffic management concept. It defines a full‑digital and automatic low‑altitude traffic service system for unmanned aircraft. Instead of replacing traditional air traffic management, it delivers incremental low‑altitude service capabilities to form a closed‑loop digital workflow covering unmanned aircraft registration & identification, flight plan collaboration, dynamic airspace management, conflict detection and resolution, situational surveillance, and emergency disposal. Pilot verifications have been carried out in multiple EU member states, forming a four‑phase U1‑U4 evolution roadmap referenced by numerous countries and regions worldwide.
China keeps advancing low‑altitude airspace reform. The Interim Regulations on the Flight Administration of Unmanned Aircraft has come into force, with supporting mandatory national standards for real‑name registration and operational identification implemented. Local governments have successively built low‑altitude comprehensive management & control service platforms and launched large‑scale urban unmanned aircraft pilots. Nevertheless, for future regular large‑scale operations involving hundreds of thousands or millions of aircraft, the digital air traffic management system still faces practical challenges including architecture selection, inter‑operability among multiple service providers, supporting infrastructure, cross‑department collaboration, and hierarchical risk management. How to absorb advanced U‑Space concepts and develop a localized digital air traffic management construction path compatible with China’s national conditions has become a critical proposition for high‑quality development of the low‑altitude industry.
1.2 Research Significance
Theoretically, this report analyzes the complete U‑Space system architecture, clarifies conceptual boundaries among digital air traffic management, traditional ATM and UTM, improves the theoretical framework for large‑scale unmanned aircraft operation control, supplements systematic domestic research on U‑Space, and sorts out internal logics and boundary conditions of its four‑tier services.
Practically, targeting pain points in large‑scale operations, this report sorts out implementable system construction paths, and delivers systematic solutions for digital airspace governance, multi‑provider collaboration, communication‑navigation‑surveillance infrastructure, collaboration among airborne‑side, platform‑side and regulatory‑side systems, as well as emergency security systems. It can serve as references for local low‑altitude platform construction, R&D of industrial entities, and formulation of policies and standards.
Industrially, it analyzes the industrial division pattern under the U‑Space model, clarifies rights and obligations of entities across low‑altitude manufacturing, flight services, infrastructure, support & matching, and cross‑boundary integration platforms. It helps industrial stakeholders clarify their positioning and promotes unmanned aircraft to evolve from scattered demonstrations toward large‑scale regular commercial operations.
1.3 Research Scope and Boundary Definition
This report targets the U‑Space digital air traffic management system, focusing on unmanned aircraft operating within low‑altitude airspace below 1000 meters, including multi‑rotor UAVs, vertical take‑off and landing fixed‑wing aircraft, eVTOLs and other unmanned aerial vehicles in large‑scale operation scenarios. Research scope covers system architecture, technical foundation, institutional rules, implementation paths and risk management & control.
Boundary note: The U‑Space digital air traffic management system is not equivalent to a complete national air traffic management system. It does not directly replace existing civil aviation and military air traffic control. It focuses on exclusive digital services for unmanned aircraft and realizes two‑way data interaction and information exchange with traditional air traffic management systems. Combining international practical experience and China’s institutional environment, this report centers on operation control paths and excludes detailed airworthiness certification rules for specific aircraft models.
1.4 Research Methodology
This report adopts literature analysis to sort out open operational concept documents released by EU SESAR, EASA and ICAO, as well as domestic regulations, national standards and industrial guidelines. Case analysis is applied to compare U‑Space pilots across European countries, NASA‑UTM in the United States and Singapore Skyway project. System analysis disassembles modules of the digital air traffic management system and rights & obligations of related entities. Trend deduction forecasts technical and institutional evolution directions of large‑scale operations based on industrial data.
2. Core Theories and Architecture Analysis of U‑Space Digital Air Traffic Management System
2.1 Origin and Core Positioning of U‑Space Concept
Proposed by the EU SESAR Joint Undertaking, U‑Space is a set of digital and automated service portfolio oriented toward massive low‑altitude unmanned aircraft operations. Its core idea: low‑altitude UAV operations cannot follow the manual control mode for manned aircraft. Most control logics shall be transformed into machine‑to‑machine digital service interfaces. U‑Space Service Providers (USSP) deliver standardized services to UAV operators and airborne systems, while the Common Information Service Provider (CISP) realizes data aggregation and coordination across service providers. Ultimately, numerous UAVs can operate safely and efficiently within the same low‑altitude environment with interconnection to traditional ATM air traffic management systems.
U‑Space has three core positioning points. First, complementary rather than substitutive: U‑Space serves as incremental low‑altitude services with two‑way interconnection to traditional ATM. Second, service‑driven: it takes standardized callable digital services as carriers instead of a single hardware platform. Third, phased evolution: construction proceeds in phases from U1 to U4 with progressive capability improvement to avoid technical and institutional risks brought by one‑step full deployment.
2.2 Four‑Tier U1‑U4 Service Capability Framework of U‑Space
U1 Foundation Services
U1 serves as the base of the whole system and addresses the core requirement of “identifiable status”. Core services include e‑Registration, e‑Identification and pre‑tactical geofencing services.
e‑Registration realizes unified registration of operators and aircraft information; e‑Identification guarantees recognizability of aircraft throughout flights; pre‑tactical geofencing releases static and medium‑long‑term temporary no‑flight and restricted‑zone information for pre‑flight planning. The U1 phase mainly supports simple visual‑line‑of‑sight and small‑volume flights. It cannot support complex BVLOS large‑scale operations and acts as a prerequisite for all higher‑level services.
U2 Initial Services
Built upon U1, U2 adds full‑process flight management capabilities. Main services include flight plan submission & authorization, network‑based UAV tracking, tactical dynamic geofencing, procedural interfaces with traditional ATM, and flight record retention & auditing.
U2 supports regular BVLOS operations. Service providers can receive flight plans, verify airspace constraints and issue flight authorizations, continuously track position status during flights, and support real‑time geofence updates. Most ongoing pilots in EU countries are at the U2 stage, capable of supporting medium‑scale commercial operations yet incapable of high‑density massive concurrent operations in urban areas.
U3 Advanced Services
Targeting large‑scale high‑density operations, U3 adds dynamic airspace capacity management, strategic conflict resolution, tactical real‑time conflict detection & avoidance, and dynamic route adjustment services.
Instead of merely pre‑approving flight plans, the system can dynamically partition and allocate airspace resources according to real‑time airspace load. When conflict risks exist among multiple flight trajectories, trajectory calculation and resolution are completed at the pre‑flight strategic stage. When sudden conflicts emerge during flights, adjustment instructions are automatically generated and delivered to airborne terminals to realize distributed or centralized conflict resolution. As the critical tier for large‑scale urban unmanned aircraft operations, U3 requires low‑latency and high‑reliability communication, and computing platforms capable of massive parallel trajectory calculation.
U4 Full‑scale Services
As the highest‑maturity phase, U4 targets complex ultra‑large‑scale urban scenarios for high‑density mixed operations of heterogeneous aircraft including manned eVTOLs, cargo UAVs, inspection UAVs and emergency aircraft. It features fully‑automatic traffic management, large‑scale emergency disposal, heterogeneous aircraft collaborative avoidance, and deep automation‑driven integration with traditional ATM, achieving annual operation capacity of millions of flights. U4 imposes extremely high requirements on infrastructure, regulations & standards, airborne software & hardware, and personnel competence, and remains in experimental verification globally.
2.3 Multi‑subject System Architecture of U‑Space
U‑Space is not a single centralized platform. It adopts a distributed collaborative architecture of “CISP (Common Information Service Provider) + multiple USSP (U‑Space Service Providers)”.
1. CISP (Common Information Service Provider): Acts as the global public information hub. It aggregates airspace geofence, meteorology, alarm and air‑traffic‑interaction public data, realizes data exchange among different USSPs, ensures mutual visibility of flight plans across service providers, and prevents conflicts caused by invisible UAVs under different service provider systems.
2. USSP (U‑Space Service Provider): Delivers direct services for UAV operators. It receives flight applications from users, invokes CISP public data, completes plan verification, authorization issuance, surveillance and conflict management. As service units directly interfacing with market entities, multiple market participants can compete to provide such services.
3. UAV Operators and Airborne Systems: Airborne terminals realize identification reporting, receive flight authorizations, execute trajectories, and accept conflict alarms and adjustment instructions.
4. Traditional ATM Air Traffic Management System: Delivers airspace constraints around airports and controlled airspace to U‑Space, receives high‑risk flight alarms from U‑Space, and realizes interaction between manned and unmanned airspace.
5. Regulatory Authorities: Responsible for rule‑making, qualification supervision, operation auditing and post‑incident investigation, without participating in real‑time command for each flight.
This architecture avoids monopoly by a single platform, encourages market participants to supply services, and eliminates information silos among service providers via CISP, representing a key feature of U‑Space architectural design.
2.4 Concept Distinction among U‑Space, UTM and Traditional ATM
Traditional ATM: Oriented toward manned aircraft, adopting manual controller command and centralized control with high safety level and limited flight‑processing capacity.
UTM (Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management): A general concept covering all UAV traffic management systems. NASA‑UTM of the United States and European U‑Space both belong to implementation paradigms of UTM.
U‑Space: A set of specific implementation specifications and service definitions proposed by the European Union, representing the European solution under UTM. It defines four‑tier explicit services and CISP‑USSP multi‑service‑provider interface specifications with a complete implementation roadmap.
3. Global Construction Practices of U‑Space Digital Air Traffic Management System
3.1 Overall Progress in the European Union
Relying on SESAR joint projects, the European Union issued Regulation (EU) 2021/664 to establish the legal foundation for U‑Space, clarify rights and obligations of CISP and USSP, unify data‑interaction interface standards, and promote implementation among member states. France, Spain and Italy have launched large‑scale pilots. Paris, Toulouse, Madrid and Milan have successively carried out regular U2‑level pilots, while partial regions initiate U3 technical verification for urban logistics, medical material transportation and cluster‑operation tests.
Currently most regions across the EU have completed full U1 deployment, key cities realize U2 implementation, U3 remains in demonstration verification, and U4 serves as a long‑term vision. The EU model features regulation priority and mandatory compliance of unified interfaces by service providers to guarantee interoperability across nations and service providers. Its disadvantage lies in relatively long approval procedures and slow commercial implementation.
3.2 Parallel Technical Route of NASA‑UTM in the United States
The United States has not adopted the full U‑Space system. It develops the NASA‑UTM technical framework. Supported by FAA mandatory Remote ID requirements, it prioritizes distributed collaboration. Market‑oriented enterprises are responsible for developing UTM service platforms while governmental authorities formulate rules and standards without operating service hubs directly. The United States focuses on Class‑G airspace below 400 feet (approx.122 meters), prioritizing remote identity identification and flight‑information sharing, and conducts urban air mobility tests in Dallas and Los Angeles. Compared with U‑Space, the United States lacks a unified mandatory CISP‑like public hub. Inter‑provider interoperability relies on voluntary industrial standards, leading to relatively prominent risks of information silos in high‑density large‑scale operations.
3.3 Asian Practice: Singapore Skyway Project
Singapore CAAS’s Skyway low‑altitude digital infrastructure project draws on U‑Space four‑tier service concepts. Tailored for the country’s compact urban territory, it builds a unified low‑altitude digital base integrated with 5G‑A communication‑sensing integrated base stations to achieve continuous urban low‑altitude surveillance. It connects regulatory authorities and commercial service‑provider interfaces and completes multiple UAV logistics and inspection pilots. It serves as a sample for digital air traffic management construction in city‑state economies, offering valuable experience in integrated communication‑surveillance infrastructure construction.
3.4 Development Status of Domestic Low‑Altitude Digital Management & Control Platforms
China takes the Interim Regulations on the Flight Administration of Unmanned Aircraft as top‑level regulations, releasing two mandatory national standards GB 46750 and GB 46761 for real‑name registration and operational identification. UAVs are required to support network‑based and broadcast‑style operational identification reporting to realize foundational U1‑tier identity‑identification capabilities. Multiple cities including Shenzhen, Hainan and Suzhou have built low‑altitude comprehensive management & control service platforms and launched low‑altitude opening pilots, realizing flight reporting, geofencing and situational surveillance corresponding to U1‑U2 capabilities.
Current domestic characteristics: Most platforms are uniformly built by local governments. Partial pilots start to explore access for multiple socialized flight‑service entities. Nevertheless, dynamic capacity management, cross‑provider conflict resolution, large‑scale parallel trajectory calculation and automatic two‑way interfaces with traditional air traffic management required for U3‑level large‑scale operations remain under development. No unified national CISP‑USSP‑style interface specifications have been formed, which constitutes a priority for subsequent construction.
4. Core Contradictions and Risks for Large‑Scale Unmanned Aircraft Operations
When operation scale expands from hundreds to thousands or tens‑of‑thousands of simultaneously‑online UAVs in cities, simple reporting plus static geofencing modes will become inadequate, exposing multiple systematic contradictions.
4.1 Airspace Resource Contradiction: Static Airspace Management Fails to Meet Dynamic Mass‑Volume Demands
Traditional airspace division mostly adopts static fixed modes, while large‑scale UAV operation demands are highly fragmented with temporally‑spatially scattered tasks for logistics, inspection, emergency rescue and cultural‑tourism purposes. Full manual case‑by‑case approval cannot match high‑frequency short‑duration flight requirements. Static no‑flight geofences result in massive waste of airspace resources, bringing about polarization between regional congestion and idle airspace. Without dynamic airspace slicing and dynamic capacity allocation mechanisms, conflict probabilities will rise exponentially under high‑density scenarios.
4.2 Deficiencies in Communication‑Navigation‑Surveillance Infrastructure
U‑Space U3/U4 capabilities are highly dependent on low‑latency communication, high‑precision positioning and full‑coverage continuous surveillance. GNSS satellite navigation signals are vulnerable to shielding in urban high‑rise‑canyon environments. Public mobile communication networks face congestion risks under massive concurrent UAV access in partial low‑altitude airspace. If aircraft lose communication links under pure airborne‑report‑dependent modes, regulatory authorities will lose situational awareness. Ground‑sensing base stations incur high deployment costs, and full urban‑area coverage proves difficult.
Under large‑scale‑operation scenarios, communication‑link latency jitter, positioning drift and surveillance blind spots may directly trigger conflict‑resolution failures and safety accidents. Infrastructure constitutes hard constraints restricting scaled‑up operations.
4.3 Technical Challenges of Conflict Detection and Resolution
For small‑volume operations, pre‑flight plan verification can mitigate most risks. Under large‑scale scenarios, numerous unplanned dynamic flights, temporary missions and unexpected aircraft trajectory deviations will occur. Conflicts are divided into intra‑provider conflicts and cross‑provider conflicts among different operators.
Without a CISP‑like public hub, different service‑provider platforms cannot perceive flight trajectories of others, generating “invisible conflicts”. Meanwhile, conflict‑resolution algorithms must handle massive parallel computation, constraints of heterogeneous aircraft with different maneuvering capabilities, and priority classification for emergency rescue aircraft with passage priority. Algorithms feature extremely high complexity. Pure centralized computing power suffers performance bottlenecks, calling for edge‑cloud collaborative architecture support.
4.4 Gaps in Regulation and Standard Systems
Full U‑Space system operation relies on complete supporting institutions: qualification access for USSP service providers, mandatory data‑exchange standards, operation‑responsibility division (among platforms, operators and manufacturers), safety objectives for large‑scale operations, SORA risk‑assessment workflows, joint disposal mechanisms for unauthorized flights, and rules for data security and low‑altitude geographic‑information protection.
Although China’s fundamental regulations have been promulgated, supporting rules concerning multi‑service‑provider interfaces, accident‑liability definition, dynamic airspace operation rules and cross‑departmental data‑sharing mechanisms still require continuous improvement for U3‑level high‑density large‑scale operations.
4.5 Multi‑subject Collaboration and Industrial Ecological Risks
Digital air traffic management involves civil aviation, air‑traffic‑control authorities, public security authorities, industry‑information‑technology departments, local governments, communication operators, UAV manufacturers and flight‑service operators. Barriers exist for cross‑departmental data exchange. Hardware‑software product capabilities vary across industrial chains. Large quantities of legacy UAVs cannot support operational‑identification reporting. Safety competence diverges among market participants, and some small‑and‑medium‑sized operators lack safety‑management systems for large‑scale operations. Low‑altitude data contains substantial sensitive geographic and urban information, bringing risks of data leakage and tampering.
5. Overall Construction Ideas for China’s Digital Air Traffic Management System under U‑Space Concepts
5.1 General Construction Principles
First, reference‑based adaptation and localized evolution: Absorb U‑Space concepts including four‑tier services and multi‑service‑provider collaboration, instead of mechanically copying the EU CISP‑USSP organizational model. Develop a digital air traffic management system compatible with China’s regulatory system with phased U1‑U4 iterative upgrades, avoiding one‑step pursuit of full U4 capabilities.
Second, safety‑bottom‑line priority with industrial‑efficiency balance: Safety serves as a prerequisite for large‑scale operations. Balance safety control and commercial‑operation efficiency, implement risk‑hierarchized management: simplify procedures for low‑risk scenarios and impose strengthened constraints for high‑risk scenarios.
Third, unified base and socialized services: Unify public basic‑information bases (airspace geofences, meteorology, control constraints and identity registration); introduce multiple socialized service providers for flight‑service businesses to encourage market innovation.
Fourth, collaborative construction of terminal‑network‑cloud‑institutions: Promote synchronous development of airborne terminals, communication‑surveillance networks, digital air‑traffic‑management cloud platforms and regulatory‑standard systems. Avoid focusing merely on software platforms while ignoring airborne hardware and communication‑infrastructure deficiencies.
Fifth, mandatory inter‑operability: Establish unified data‑interface standards to eliminate information silos and guarantee mutual visibility of flight situations across service providers, representing a core bottom‑line requirement for large‑scale operations.
5.2 Overall System Architecture Design
The whole system consists of five layers: institution‑standard layer, public‑information‑base layer, digital‑air‑traffic‑management‑service layer, communication‑navigation‑surveillance‑infrastructure layer, and aircraft‑airborne‑terminal layer.
1. Institution‑standard Layer: Including laws & regulations, national standards, interface specifications, subject qualifications, safety liabilities and data‑security institutions, serving as rule‑based foundations for system operation.
2. Public‑information‑base Layer: Performing CISP‑public‑hub functions in U‑Space. Hosts real‑name‑registration database, global dynamic geofence database, controlled‑airspace‑constraint information, low‑altitude meteorological data and alarm information. The public base does not process commercial flight applications directly. It only exports public basic data externally and realizes situational‑data exchange among different socialized service providers to ensure mutual visibility of cross‑provider flights.
3. Digital‑air‑traffic‑management‑service Layer: Undertaking USSP‑service‑provider roles. Multiple socialized flight‑service platforms receive flight plans from operators, invoke public‑base data for plan verification and authorization issuance, conduct intra‑platform conflict management, flight surveillance and record retention. Service providers exchange situational data via the public base. Regulatory authorities can audit operation data of all service providers.
4. Communication‑navigation‑surveillance‑infrastructure Layer: Includes Beidou satellite navigation, 5G‑A/6G mobile communication networks, communication‑sensing integrated low‑altitude sensing base stations and low‑altitude meteorological‑sensing networks, delivering communication transmission, positioning and non‑cooperative‑target detection capabilities.
5. Airborne‑terminal Layer: Airborne hardware & software for unmanned aircraft with functions including operational‑identification reporting, flight‑authorization reception, geofence verification, conflict alarming, emergency return‑to‑home, and link‑failure safety logics. Legacy old‑model UAVs without such capabilities shall be retrofitted or restricted in operation scenarios in accordance with standards.
Two‑way interfaces are deployed within the architecture to connect with traditional ATM air‑traffic‑management systems. High‑risk low‑altitude alarms are pushed to air‑traffic‑control authorities, while airspace‑restriction information from civil‑aviation control is received to realize collaborative manned‑unmanned airspace operations.
5.3 Phased Evolution Targets (Benchmarked against U1‑U4)
Phase 1: Consolidate U1 foundational capabilities (Short‑term, starting from current status)
Fully implement real‑name registration and mandatory operational identification. Improve static and pre‑tactical geofence systems. Complete the preliminary version of the public‑information base with unified identity and geofence basic data. Support visual‑line‑of‑sight and small‑to‑medium‑scale BVLOS operations, achieving basic awareness of “who is flying and where flights take place”.
Phase 2: Complete U2 full capabilities (Medium‑term: 2‑3 years)
Improve full‑process digital management of flight plans. Support tactical dynamic geofencing and full‑flight‑cycle tracking surveillance, plus complete flight‑record auditing. Open interfaces for socialized service providers to access the public‑information base and launch pilots for multiple service providers. Support regular medium‑scale urban BVLOS commercial operations with thousands of concurrent flights, and complete pilot verification in key cities.
Phase 3: Realize U3 advanced management‑control capabilities (Medium‑long‑term: 3‑6 years)
The public‑information base and service providers acquire dynamic airspace‑capacity scheduling and strategic‑tactical two‑tier conflict‑resolution capabilities, supporting cloud‑edge distributed large‑scale trajectory calculation. Communication‑surveillance infrastructure is optimized for coverage in key cities. The system can support tens‑of‑thousands‑level concurrent unmanned‑aircraft operations in urban environments and enable demonstration operations for logistics and eVTOLs, marking the critical phase for large‑scale commercialization.
Phase 4: Explore U4 full‑scenario capabilities (Long‑term vision)
Realize high‑density mixed operations of heterogeneous aircraft, in‑depth automated integration with traditional ATM, fully‑automatic traffic management and automatic disposal for large‑scale emergencies, targeting millions of annual flights. This phase requires comprehensive maturity of technologies, regulations and industries.
6. Key Construction and Implementation Paths for Large‑Scale Unmanned Aircraft Operations
6.1 Construction Path for the Public‑information Base
The public base adheres to public attributes, constructed and maintained under government leadership without competing in commercial flight‑service businesses. Core datasets include: real‑name‑registration library for aircraft and operators; three‑dimensional airspace geographic‑information library (static no‑restricted‑flight zones, temporary dynamic airspace, airport‑perimeter constraints); integrated low‑altitude meteorological‑database; cross‑provider flight‑situation exchange bus; operation‑audit archiving module.
The base exports standardized API interfaces externally. All socialized service providers must connect to the base, mandatorily upload real‑time aircraft situation data within their platforms, and obtain situational data from other platforms. Strict data classification and grading shall be implemented to distinguish public information, regulatory confidential information and commercial private information. Data‑security and personal‑information‑protection requirements shall be fulfilled with permission‑isolation mechanisms to prevent leakage of sensitive low‑altitude geographic information.
6.2 Construction Path for Communication‑Navigation‑Surveillance Infrastructure
Large‑scale operations cannot rely solely on airborne reporting. A dual‑source surveillance system combining “airborne reporting plus ground‑based sensing” must be built.
For navigation: Take the Beidou system as the core, construct urban indoor‑outdoor fusion positioning enhancement services to mitigate positioning drift in urban‑canyon scenarios and guarantee positioning accuracy satisfying conflict‑resolution requirements.
For communication: Leverage 5G‑A networks to optimize low‑altitude‑scenario network performance. Apply network slicing to guarantee communication priority for UAV services and reduce latency jitter. Optimize base‑station‑side algorithms for high‑density concurrent UAV access to avoid network congestion caused by massive‑volume aircraft accessing partial low‑altitude airspace. Explore supplementary dedicated low‑altitude communication approaches.
For surveillance and sensing: Deploy communication‑sensing integrated base stations in core urban‑operation zones to detect non‑cooperative unauthorized‑flight targets and compensate for deficiencies of pure airborne‑report‑dependent modes. Build a multi‑source fused situational platform integrating satellite, mobile‑communication and ground‑sensing data.
Adopt a co‑construction‑and‑sharing model for infrastructure. Communication operators, local governments and industrial entities cooperate for investment to avoid redundant construction.
6.3 Construction of Digital Air‑traffic‑management Services and Conflict‑resolution Mechanisms
Socialized USSP service providers deliver direct services for end‑users. Service providers shall complete qualification access and mandatorily connect to public‑base interfaces.
Conflict resolution adopts hierarchical processing: First tier, strategic pre‑tactical conflict resolution. At flight‑plan submission, service providers calculate trajectory conflicts in combination with global situational data from the public base and adjust flight routes to resolve conflicts before take‑off. Second tier, tactical real‑time conflict resolution. When sudden conflicts emerge during flights, two levels including cloud‑aided decision‑making and airborne autonomous avoidance are applied. Cloud‑side adjustment suggestions are prioritized for general conflicts. Under extreme communication‑failure conditions, airborne terminals execute safety logics of autonomous avoidance, return‑to‑home or hovering.
Aircraft priority mechanisms shall be established: emergency rescue and medical‑transport aircraft are assigned high priority and granted passage priority during conflict disposal.
Adopt cloud‑edge collaborative computing architecture. Large‑scale trajectory‑calculation workloads are offloaded to edge‑computing nodes to reduce cloud‑side bandwidth and latency pressure, improve system robustness and prevent global‑range paralysis caused by single‑point cloud‑side failures.
6.4 Upgrade Path for Airborne‑terminal Capabilities
Airborne terminals serve as the final execution unit of the whole management‑control system. Platform‑side control instructions cannot be implemented without qualified airborne hardware. Strictly implement national‑standard operational‑identification requirements. New‑factory‑produced unmanned aircraft shall fully support network‑based and broadcast‑style operational‑identification reporting, and be capable of receiving geofence and flight‑authorization instructions.
Classified disposal for legacy old‑model UAVs: Retrofit models capable of adding identification modules; gradually restrict operation scenarios and airspace for non‑retrofittable models and forbid their access to urban large‑scale‑operation airspace. Mandate link‑failure safety logics for airborne systems: execute preset safety strategies (hovering, return‑to‑home, nearby forced landing) upon communication loss to prevent out‑of‑control flight.
6.5 Construction Path for Regulation‑standard and Multi‑subject‑collaboration Mechanisms
Accelerate improvement of supporting rules for large‑scale operations: formulate administrative measures covering access, operation supervision, assessment and exit for socialized flight‑service providers; formulate mandatory national standards for data‑interaction between public‑information bases and service providers; clarify safety‑accident‑liability boundaries among manufacturers, operators and service providers; improve risk‑assessment workflows for large‑scale operations and establish localized risk‑assessment systems referencing SORA risk‑assessment concepts.
Build cross‑departmental collaborative mechanisms. Civil aviation, air‑traffic‑control, public security, industry‑information‑technology and local low‑altitude competent authorities conduct regular coordination, promote data‑sharing, and form closed‑loop joint disposal for unauthorized and rule‑violating flights. Give full play to roles of industrial‑platform organizations. Industrial platforms including Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Manufacturing Platform, Low‑Altitude Flight Platform, Low‑Altitude Support Platform, Industry‑Supporting Platform and Cross‑Boundary Integration Platform drive industrial‑chain collaboration, and promote joint technical research and demonstration tests among manufacturers, operators and infrastructure enterprises.
6.6 Construction of Safety Resilience and Emergency‑response Systems
Failures cannot be completely eliminated under large‑scale‑operation scenarios, so multi‑dimensional safety‑resilience systems shall be constructed.
First, failure‑degradation mechanism: When partial failures occur in public‑information bases, communication networks or service‑provider systems, the system shall support degraded‑operation modes instead of total breakdown.
Second, closed‑loop abnormal‑alarm mechanism: Generate hierarchical alarms for aircraft trajectory deviation, identification interruption, link loss and geofence‑boundary intrusion, and push alarms to operators, service providers and regulatory authorities hierarchically.
Third, large‑scale emergency‑incident disposal: Under disaster or major‑event scenarios, the system supports one‑click dynamic airspace adjustment and batch modification of flight constraints to guarantee passage priority for emergency aircraft.
Fourth, post‑incident traceability and auditing: All flight plans, situational data and instructions are archived for accident investigation and liability identification.
Fifth, air‑defense‑security protection: Build identification, early‑warning and joint‑disposal workflows for maliciously‑modified UAVs and unauthorized flights.
7. Industrial Challenges and Future Development Trends
7.1 Current Major Industrial Challenges
First, uneven maturity of hardware‑software industrial chains and massive retrofitting workload for legacy aircraft. Second, high construction costs for communication‑sensing infrastructure in core urban zones with unclear business models for return‑on‑investment. Third, resistance against implementation of inter‑service‑provider inter‑operability standards. Fourth, high difficulty in safety verification for large‑scale operations. Limited real‑world high‑density urban flight‑test scenarios force most algorithm verification to rely on digital‑twin simulation. Fifth, institutional clarification is still required for low‑altitude‑data ownership and boundaries for commercial data utilization.
7.2 Future Development Trends
First, in‑depth application of digital‑twin airspace. Build high‑fidelity digital‑twin airspace mapping physical low‑altitude environments for flight rehearsal, conflict‑simulation deduction and large‑scale‑operation simulation tests, greatly reducing real‑world flight‑test costs, serving as core supporting tools for U3‑U4 phases.
Second, deep empowerment of digital air‑traffic‑management by AI large‑models. Artificial intelligence is adopted for traffic‑flow prediction, intelligent conflict resolution, abnormal‑flight‑behavior identification and joint meteorology‑airspace scheduling to improve system efficiency under massive‑volume scenarios. Meanwhile, traceability and manual‑intervention entrances shall be reserved for AI‑driven decision‑making, prohibiting fully‑unsupervised automation.
Third, communication‑sensing integrated networks become mainstream low‑altitude infrastructure. 5G‑A evolves toward 6G, realizing integration of communication, navigation and sensing. One set of infrastructure delivers multiple capabilities including data transmission, positioning and target detection.
Fourth, localized innovation of China’s domestic digital air‑traffic‑management system. Without fully replicating the EU U‑Space organizational model, China absorbs core concepts including four‑tier services and mandatory inter‑operability to form a Chinese‑style low‑altitude digital‑air‑traffic‑management paradigm. Meanwhile, China actively participates in ICAO international‑standard formulation and exports domestic practical experience.
Fifth, further clarified division of labor for industrial platforms. Low‑altitude manufacturing platforms, flight platforms, infrastructure platforms, support‑matching platforms and cross‑boundary‑integration platforms perform respective functions to form a complete low‑altitude‑economy industrial community.
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
The U‑Space digital air‑traffic‑management system delivers a mature reference framework for global large‑scale unmanned‑aircraft operations. Its four‑phase evolution roadmap, collaborative architecture of public base plus multiple socialized service providers, and machine‑to‑machine digital‑service concepts provide important references for China’s digital governance of low‑altitude airspace. Large‑scale unmanned‑aircraft operations are not merely about constructing a single software management‑control platform, but represent a systematic project covering institutions & standards, public‑information bases, communication‑navigation‑surveillance infrastructure, airborne terminals and emergency‑security systems. Pursuit of one‑step‑in‑place full U4‑capability realization shall be avoided. Iterative construction shall be implemented step‑by‑step following U1‑U2‑U3‑U4 progression.
Combined with research outcomes of this report, five recommendations are proposed:
First, prioritize consolidation of U1 foundational bases. Fully implement mandatory national standards for real‑name registration and operational identification. Build a national unified low‑altitude public‑information base and prioritize public capabilities for identity management, airspace geofencing and situational‑data exchange to lay solid foundations for upper‑layer services.
Second, accelerate formulation of mandatory interface national standards between public‑information bases and socialized flight‑service providers. Treat cross‑provider situational‑data inter‑visibility as rigid access requirements to institutionally eliminate information silos, which constitutes the safety bottom‑line for high‑density large‑scale operations.
Third, promote collaborative development of terminal‑network‑cloud. Avoid over‑emphasis on platform software while neglecting airborne hardware and communication‑sensing infrastructure. Increase pilot deployment of Beidou‑enhanced and 5G‑A communication‑sensing integrated low‑altitude infrastructure, and push forward standardized retrofitting of legacy aircraft.
Fourth, carry out phased U2 and U3 pilot demonstrations in selected cities. Prioritize low‑altitude‑reform pilot cities to conduct parallel multi‑service‑provider operation tests, verify conflict‑resolution and dynamic‑airspace‑scheduling capabilities under real‑business scenarios, and feed pilot practical experience back to improvement of regulations and standards.
Fifth, build complete safety‑resilience and emergency‑response closed loops. Establish workflows for failure degradation, abnormal‑alarm processing, emergency‑incident disposal and full‑process‑auditing traceability. Clarify safety‑liability boundaries for all stakeholders, and steadily promote large‑scale commercial unmanned‑aircraft operations under precondition of guaranteed safety.
Amid the new‑quality‑productivity‑driven development wave of the low‑altitude economy, the digital air‑traffic‑management system acts as the core enabler for large‑scale unmanned‑aircraft operations. By fully absorbing advanced international U‑Space experience and proceeding with system construction based on China’s national conditions and institutional realities, safe, efficient and orderly exploitation of low‑altitude airspace can be realized to unlock huge industrial value of the low‑altitude economy.
Data Sources
[1] SESAR Joint Undertaking. U‑Space Concept of Operations[S]. European Union, 2021.
[2] EASA. Regulation (EU) 2021/664 U‑Space Implementing Rule[Z]. European Union Official Journal, 2021.
[3] Civil Aviation Administration of China. Interim Regulations on the Flight Administration of Unmanned Aircraft[Z]. 2024.
[4] GB 46761‑2025, Requirements for Real‑Name Registration and Activation of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems[S]. State Administration for Market Regulation, 2025.
[5] GB 46750‑2025, Specification for Operational Identification of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems[S]. State Administration for Market Regulation, 2025.
[6] NASA. UTM Concept of Operations Version 1.0[R]. NASA Ames Research Center, 2018.
[7] CAAS (Singapore). Skyway Low‑Altitude Digital Infrastructure Phase 3 Report[R]. 2025.
[8] Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Research Papers on Low‑Altitude Intelligent Connected Systems[J]. 2025.
[9] Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica. Preliminary Research on Low‑Altitude Airspace Unmanned‑System Traffic‑Management Schemes[J]. 2024.
[10] Public Industrial Statistics: Global Inventory Statistics of Civil Unmanned Aircraft (2025), White Paper released by Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Industry Research Institute.
[11] China Mechatronics Technology Application Association. Group Standard for Low‑Altitude Flight Integrated Supervision‑Control‑Service Platform[S]. 2025.
Disclaimer
This research report Research Report on U‑Space Digital Air Traffic Management System Construction and Large‑Scale Operation Control Path for Unmanned Aircraft is jointly compiled by Buckhouse Intelligent Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute and associated industrial platforms. The report content is for academic research and industrial‑analysis reference only. It shall not constitute any policy‑enforcement basis, engineering implementation scheme or commercial‑investment advice. Partial data in this report originates from open publications, industrial white papers and public documents of international institutions. Subject to technological iteration, policy updates and changes in industrial environments, partial viewpoints and data carry timeliness limitations. All risks arising from decisions made by any institution or individual based on this report shall be borne by the decision‑maker. Compiling entities of this report shall not bear any direct or indirect legal liabilities therefrom. Without written permission from compiling entities, tampering, distortion and commercial secondary compilation of report content are prohibited. Citation of report content shall fully mark the report title and all compiling entities. Copyright of cited external literature and data belongs to original institutions.
