Research on the Construction of Low‑Altitude Economy Standard System: Multi‑Scenario Standard Gaps and Countermeasures for International Standard Compatibility
Authors: 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 Economic 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
As a vital component of new‑quality productive forces, the low‑altitude economy has become a core track for global industrial competition and rule‑making games. Business forms including manned electric vertical take‑off and landing aircraft (eVTOL), large‑scale commercial UAVs, low‑altitude logistics, urban air mobility, emergency rescue and low‑altitude cultural tourism are accelerating their transition from pilot demonstrations to large‑scale commercial operation. The standard system serves as the institutional foundation for safe operation, large‑scale industrial expansion and cross‑border market development of the low‑altitude economy. China has released the Guidelines for the Construction of the Low‑Altitude Economy Standard System (2025 Edition), setting development targets of basically completing the low‑altitude economy standard system by 2027 and exceeding 300 standards by 2030, and establishing a top‑level framework covering five sectors: aircraft, infrastructure, air traffic operation, safety supervision and application scenarios. Nevertheless, prominent challenges persist, including insufficient supply of subdivided standards for multiple scenarios, inadequate cross‑domain standard coordination, technical standards lagging behind product iteration, and compatibility barriers between domestic and international rule systems, which hinder large‑scale industrial implementation and global expansion.
Based on domestic low‑altitude industrial practices and the global standardization landscape, this report sorts out the current progress of China’s low‑altitude economy standard system, analyzes standard gaps in typical application scenarios such as urban air passenger transport, low‑altitude logistics and distribution, emergency rescue, agricultural and forestry operations, low‑altitude cultural tourism inspection, and urban governance. It compares standard frameworks of international bodies including FAA (US), EASA (EU), ICAO, ISO/IEC, identifies discrepancies between domestic and international standards, studies pathways for compatibility between Chinese and international standards, and puts forward tiered and categorized compatibility countermeasures, domestic standard optimization schemes and strategies for participating in international standardization. It provides research references for the high‑quality development of China’s low‑altitude economy and engagement in global low‑altitude rule‑setting.
Keywords: Low‑Altitude Economy; Standard System; Application Scenarios; Standard Gaps; International Standard Compatibility; Advanced Air Mobility; eVTOL
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background
The global low‑altitude economy industry is undergoing rapid growth. Technologies across industrial chains such as unmanned aerial vehicles, eVTOLs, low‑altitude station infrastructure and low‑altitude communication‑perception networks are iterating fast with continuous industrial expansion. China’s core low‑altitude economy industry reached approximately RMB 408 billion in 2025. Multiple institutions project that the domestic industrial scale will surpass RMB 1.1 trillion by 2030 and hit RMB 2.65 trillion by 2035, maintaining a compound annual growth rate above 20%. The number of domestic market entities in this sector has grown rapidly. By the end of 2025, China boasted 76,100 low‑altitude‑related enterprises with a five‑year compound growth rate of 13.2%, forming a complete industrial ecosystem covering R&D and manufacturing, infrastructure, operation services and scenario‑based applications.
Meanwhile, the global low‑altitude economy rule landscape remains fragmented without unified and binding international standards. Traditional ICAO standards are mainly formulated for conventional civil airliners and helicopters. Its specifications for autonomously‑flown eVTOLs and large commercial UAVs are mostly non‑mandatory guidance documents. The US FAA and EU EASA have established their respective airworthiness and operation rule systems which are intended as global references. Most developing countries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Latin America lack self‑contained standard systems and adopt either European‑American rules or exemption‑based administration. Three major rule circles have taken shape worldwide with low mutual recognition among different systems. Enterprises face repeated certification and high compliance costs when going global.
Domestically, the newly‑revised Civil Aviation Law came into force in July 2026, adding a special chapter for low‑altitude economy development and laying a legal foundation for industry governance. The Guidelines for the Construction of the Low‑Altitude Economy Standard System (2025 Edition) jointly issued by ten authorities provides top‑level design for full‑chain standards. National, industrial, local and association standards are being successively initiated and compiled. Still, mismatches exist between standard formulation progress and industrial roll‑out. Many subdivided application scenarios lack dedicated operational standards. Shortfalls remain in infrastructure, air traffic scheduling, data security, noise control and accident handling. Many pilots rely on ad‑hoc policy support without standardized technical basis, hindering nationwide replication of pilot outcomes. When Chinese enterprises expand overseas, discrepancies in airworthiness certification, electromagnetic compatibility, remote identification and data governance lead to repeated testing and certification, significantly raising overseas costs. Standard compatibility has become a core institutional bottleneck restricting the global expansion of China’s low‑altitude industry.
Against this backdrop, systematically mapping the full‑chain low‑altitude economy standard system, identifying multi‑scenario standard gaps, clarifying discrepancies between domestic and international standards, and designing feasible implementation pathways for international standard compatibility are practically significant for promoting safe, orderly and large‑scale development of China’s low‑altitude economy and enhancing global rule‑making discourse power.
1.2 Research Scope and Boundaries
This report covers the broad scope of the low‑altitude economy, focusing mainly on airspace below 3000 meters. Research objects include unmanned aerial vehicles, manned eVTOLs, low‑altitude infrastructure, low‑altitude air traffic management and digital dispatching systems, as well as full‑scenario operation service systems. The standard scope encompasses national standards, industrial standards, local standards and association standards, alongside international standards, guidance documents and compliance specifications issued by ICAO, ISO, IEC, ITU, FAA and EASA.
Six mainstream application scenarios are highlighted: urban air mobility (UAM), low‑altitude logistics and distribution, emergency rescue and medical transfer, agricultural and forestry operations, low‑altitude cultural tourism, and urban governance inspection. This research focuses on identification of standard supply gaps and study on international standard compatibility countermeasures, excluding revisions of specific airspace control policies and corporate commercial solution design. Research methodologies include literature review, industrial case analysis and comparative benchmarking, supplemented by field survey materials from Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute covering domestic pilot cities.
1.3 Review of Domestic and International Research
Domestic academic research on low‑altitude economy standards concentrates on system framework construction, airworthiness regimes and infrastructure development. Existing studies point out that equipment standards account for a dominant share in China’s low‑altitude standard system while standards for airspace management and operational services remain insufficient. Association standards make up 47.26% of total standards, with a relatively low proportion of national and international standards. Cross‑sector collaborative development mechanisms need improvement. Many scholars argue that low‑altitude standard competition essentially reflects industrial discourse competition. China should leverage its abundant application scenarios, actively participate in international standardization bodies such as ISO/TC20/SC16, and drive the transformation of mature domestic standards into international ones.
Overseas research centers on Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) operational frameworks, eVTOL airworthiness certification and urban noise control technical specifications. European and American institutions focus heavily on high‑density urban low‑altitude mixed‑flight risks and vertiport operation‑maintenance standards. FAA and EASA keep updating conceptual verification guidelines. Nevertheless, most overseas research is rooted in local regulatory demands. Globally unified operational standards for scenarios are yet to materialize. Noticeable divergences exist in technical indicators for manned aircraft safety redundancy, battery safety and cross‑border data governance across jurisdictions.
Current literature still has limitations: few systematic studies sort out standard gaps across subdivided scenarios; differentiated international compatibility pathways for diverse scenarios are insufficiently explored; most existing outputs offer macro‑level suggestions without tiered implementation ideas. This report addresses these research deficiencies.
1.4 Report Structure
This report consists of six chapters. Chapter One serves as the introduction, elaborating research background, boundaries and methodologies. Chapter Two summarizes the overall status of China’s low‑altitude economy standard system and breaks down its five sub‑systems. Chapter Three conducts in‑depth analysis of standard gaps across six core application scenarios from equipment, operation, infrastructure and safety‑guarantee dimensions. Chapter Four depicts the global low‑altitude economy standard landscape, compares frameworks of major international organizations and economies, and sorts out key discrepancies between domestic and international standards. Chapter Five puts forward general ideas and categorized implementation countermeasures for international standard compatibility. Chapter Six draws research conclusions and proposes supporting suggestions. Data source notes and a disclaimer are attached at the end.
Chapter 2 Current Status of China’s Low‑Altitude Economy Standard System
Per the top‑level design of the Guidelines for the Construction of the Low‑Altitude Economy Standard System (2025 Edition), China’s low‑altitude economy standard system is divided into five sub‑systems: low‑altitude aircraft, low‑altitude infrastructure, low‑altitude air traffic management, safety supervision and application scenarios. It covers full chains of general fundamentals, product technologies, test evaluation and operational services, forming an architecture where general fundamentals act as the foundation, equipment and infrastructure serve as hardware support, air traffic and supervision provide institutional guarantees, and scenario‑specific standards underpin practical implementation.
2.1 Low‑Altitude Aircraft Standard Sub‑System
This sub‑system covers standards for manned eVTOLs, multi‑category UAVs, power systems, flight control and navigation, battery systems, airborne payloads, airworthiness and test evaluation. Mandatory national standards concerning safety and remote identification of small‑and‑light UAVs have been promulgated domestically, furnishing technical basis for curbing unauthorized flights. China’s airworthiness certification regime for manned eVTOLs keeps improving, with EH216‑S obtaining airworthiness certificate, validating domestic airworthiness pathways for manned unmanned aircraft.
Still, aircraft standards exhibit a feature: well‑established specifications exist for small‑and‑light equipment while standards for large‑capacity heavy‑lift and highly‑autonomous manned aircraft remain under development. Standards for fault tolerance, failure protection, complete‑machine durability testing and full‑life‑cycle safety assessment of aviation‑grade batteries for high‑autonomy aircraft are still being formulated.
2.2 Low‑Altitude Infrastructure Standard Sub‑System
Low‑altitude infrastructure includes vertiports, UAV docking stations, low‑altitude perception networks, dedicated low‑altitude communication, meteorological support facilities and charging‑swapping facilities. No unified national construction specifications for vertiports are available. Parameters for pilot projects mostly follow local guidelines. Standards for station fire protection, evacuation, noise mitigation, operation‑maintenance and multi‑aircraft compatible interfaces are not fully finalized. Universal interface standards for UAV docking stations and automatic charging‑swapping devices remain inconsistent across manufacturers, resulting in poor interoperability and redundant construction that raises industrial costs. Test‑evaluation standards for low‑altitude perception and dedicated communication systems are under accelerated initiation, yet standards for large‑scale engineering application are insufficient.
2.3 Low‑Altitude Air Traffic Management Standard Sub‑System
Standards in this segment focus on airspace classification, flight plan management, conflict detection and resolution, low‑altitude digital dispatching platforms and multi‑aircraft collaborative operation rules. China has released basic airspace classification rules, and digital low‑altitude platforms are piloted in multiple cities. However, standards for high‑density urban mixed‑flight operations are lacking. Verification standards for conflict‑resolution algorithms under fully autonomous conditions are absent. Unified national standards for cross‑regional flight dispatching data exchange formats and interface protocols have not been established, hindering cross‑city low‑altitude flight operations due to data isolation among municipal management platforms.
2.4 Safety Supervision Standard Sub‑System
This segment covers real‑name registration, remote identification, personnel qualification, risk assessment, accident investigation, cybersecurity & data security, and noise‑environment standards. Though UAV real‑name registration has been implemented domestically, standards for safety capability assessment of eVTOL operators, graded accident response and forensic traceability for flight incidents are incomplete. Standard systems for low‑altitude flight noise measurement and environmental impact assessment are still evolving. Specifications for data classification, storage and cross‑border transmission of geographic and image data collected via low‑altitude operations need refinement to balance industrial application and national security requirements.
2.5 Application Scenario Standard Sub‑System
Scenario‑based standards bridge technical products and commercial deployment, covering logistics, cultural tourism, emergency response, agriculture‑forestry and medical transfer. Current conditions show that certain traditional industrial applications have association standards, while emerging complex scenarios suffer from severe standard shortages. Association standards are available for plant‑protection UAV operations and surveying‑mapping UAV missions. Nevertheless, high‑value emerging scenarios such as manned urban commuting and urban low‑altitude delivery mostly rely on pilot policies without unified national operational‑service standards. Uniform benchmarks for operating workflows, service quality, safety thresholds and liability division are absent, restricting replication of pilot outcomes.
2.6 General Characteristics of Current System Development
First, policy‑driven advancement stands prominent. Ten national authorities coordinate standard‑system construction with clear objectives and accelerated initiation of standards. Association standards constitute a major supplementary supply source.
Second, structural imbalance exists: product‑equipment standards outnumber operational‑service standards; general fundamental standards outperform dedicated scenario‑specific standards; standards for small‑and‑light UAVs are more complete than those for heavy‑lift and manned aircraft.
Third, standard iteration lags behind technological progress. Rapid evolution of eVTOL and AI‑powered autonomous flight contrasts with long standard‑development cycles.
Fourth, domestic and international standards advance in parallel, yet systematic compatibility mechanisms are not fully in place, imposing heavy compliance burdens on overseas‑oriented enterprises.
Chapter 3 In‑Depth Analysis of Standard Gaps across Application Scenarios
Low‑altitude scenarios differ drastically in risk levels, operating environments and mission objects, leading to differentiated standard gaps. This report categorizes scenarios into six types: high‑risk manned scenarios, low‑altitude logistics, emergency public services, agricultural‑forestry operations, low‑altitude cultural tourism, and urban governance inspection. Standard gaps in equipment, infrastructure, operation services and safety assurance are analyzed respectively.
3.1 Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Manned eVTOL Scenario
Urban air mobility represents high‑risk manned scenarios for short‑haul urban air travel, with eVTOL commuting as its representative business form.
Existing Foundations: Domestic airworthiness certification practices for manned unmanned aircraft have been completed; demonstration operations are underway in selected cities.
Major Standard Gaps:
1. Operational‑service gaps: Specifications for normalized commercial operations in high‑density urban environments are missing. Unified standards for multi‑aircraft separation, air‑route planning and forced‑landing procedures during peak hours are lacking. Quantified operational boundary thresholds under diverse meteorological conditions including visibility, cross‑wind and rainfall have not been unified.
2. Infrastructure gaps: Complete standard systems for urban vertiports remain unfulfilled, covering building fire protection, passenger evacuation, noise isolation, emergency‑rescue facility allocation, multi‑aircraft compatibility and operation‑safety specifications. Construction parameters diverge across city pilots.
3. Personnel‑operator gaps: Standards for safety‑capability evaluation of eVTOL operators, qualification requirements for dispatch and maintenance staff, as well as passenger‑safety training and boarding‑management norms are absent.
4. Environmental‑social‑risk gaps: Standards for low‑altitude noise measurement, evaluation and control within urban built‑up areas are insufficient, without unified national noise‑limit values for flights near residential zones.
5. Accident‑handling gaps: Procedures for emergency response and forensic traceability for in‑flight failures and forced landings of manned aircraft, alongside supporting standards for personal‑injury liability allocation are inadequate.
Given its highest risk level, standard shortfalls constrain large‑scale commercialization. Only limited demonstration operations are feasible; nationwide massive roll‑out is not yet achievable.
3.2 Low‑Altitude Logistics and Distribution Scenario
Low‑altitude logistics includes large‑capacity cargo eVTOLs for trunk‑haul transport and small‑scale UAVs for last‑mile delivery, serving urban parcels and material transit for mountainous and island regions with inadequate ground transportation.
Existing Foundations: Multiple last‑mile UAV logistics pilots have been launched with several association standards released, yet dedicated national standards remain scarce.
Major Standard Gaps:
1. Graded operational standards: Risk profiles differ sharply between trunk heavy‑cargo missions and urban last‑mile delivery. Graded operation specifications are lacking, alongside standards for obstacle‑avoidance in dense urban canyon environments.
2. Cargo‑safety standards: Norms for cargo securing on board, prohibited dangerous‑goods lists, and risk‑control specifications for cargo damage or loss are incomplete. Unified workflows for parcel drop‑off and automatic docking‑station delivery are absent.
3. Infrastructure gaps: Universal interface standards for logistics‑specific landing sites and delivery docking stations are inconsistent across manufacturers; construction specifications for drop‑off points are missing.
4. Special‑environment adaptation standards: Operational specifications for logistics missions over islands and mountainous terrain, together with trigger thresholds for suspending flights under extreme weather.
5. Data‑collaboration standards: Interface specifications for connecting logistics flight‑dispatch and order data with municipal low‑altitude management platforms are not unified.
Though commercially promising, urban low‑altitude logistics faces prominent safety risks in complex city settings. Standard deficiencies confine pilots to closed campuses and designated routes instead of open‑space large‑scale replication.
3.3 Emergency Rescue and Medical Transfer Scenario
Emergency rescue covers disaster search‑and‑rescue, forest fire‑fighting and emergency communication support. Medical transfer includes rapid casualty transport and emergency‑supply delivery, falling under public‑service low‑altitude scenarios.
Existing Foundations: UAVs have been widely deployed in domestic disaster relief, yet formal standards are limited despite internal operational guidelines in certain industries.
Major Standard Gaps:
1. Mission‑operation standards: Operational norms for emergency flights in unplanned disaster‑stricken airspace; unified specifications for multi‑agency collaborative UAV rescue missions are lacking.
2. Medical‑transfer‑specific gaps: Standards for installation and securing of airborne medical equipment, onboard first‑aid procedures, safety thresholds for patient transport, and cold‑chain delivery control for medical supplies are blank.
3. Infrastructure gaps: Construction criteria for temporary emergency landing sites and safety‑assessment specifications for ad‑hoc disaster‑zone landing zones.
4. Priority‑operation standards: Rules granting airspace priority to emergency aircraft and conflict‑resolution protocols for urgent missions.
5. Post‑mission‑assessment standards: Evaluation criteria for low‑altitude emergency‑mission effectiveness and specifications for assessing accidents and secondary risks.
Characterized by public‑welfare attributes and highly uncertain operating conditions, insufficient standards may compromise mission safety and generate potential hazards during major disaster responses.
3.4 Agricultural and Forestry Low‑Altitude Operation Scenario
Agricultural‑forestry operations include pesticide spraying, seeding‑fertilizing, forest patrol and pest monitoring. It is China’s earliest and most extensively commercialized low‑altitude application scenario.
Existing Foundations: A set of association standards has been formed; plant‑protection UAV product standards are relatively mature with broad market adoption.
Major Standard Gaps:
1. Unified operational‑effect evaluation standards: Quantified indicators for spray droplet distribution and application uniformity across diverse crops and terrains are inconsistent; standards for mitigating pesticide drift pollution are insufficient.
2. Complex‑terrain standards: Safe‑flight specifications for operations over mountainous and hilly areas.
3. Environmental‑safety standards: Norms for aviation‑agent usage, waste‑liquid disposal and biosafety need improvement.
4. Cross‑actor coordination standards: Right‑of‑way rules for agricultural‑forestry flights interacting with other low‑altitude activities.
Despite high commercialization, the lack of unified benchmarks for service quality results in uneven performance among service providers and hinders market regularization.
3.5 Low‑Altitude Cultural‑Tourism Scenario
Low‑altitude cultural tourism encompasses eVTOL aerial sightseeing, scenic‑spot air‑experience programs as consumption‑oriented low‑altitude scenarios.
Existing Foundations: Several local administrative documents exist for low‑altitude tourism, while unified national dedicated standards are insufficient.
Major Standard Gaps:
1. Sightseeing‑route operation standards: Specifications for setting air‑tour routes around scenic areas, flight‑frequency control and passenger‑capacity limits.
2. Safety‑protection standards: Passenger boarding‑safety protocols, access restrictions for special‑demographic visitors, and site‑selection criteria for emergency forced landings of sightseeing aircraft upon malfunctions.
3. Cultural‑tourism‑site standards: Construction norms for scenic‑spot landing points and safety‑management rules for passenger gathering‑dispatching.
4. Noise‑ecological‑protection standards: Assessment criteria for wildlife disturbance caused by flights over nature reserves and scenic sites.
Targeting mass consumption with high public exposure, safety incidents in this scenario carry large social impacts. Standard gaps threaten personal safety and ecological conservation.
3.6 Urban Governance Inspection Scenario
Urban governance inspection covers security patrol, infrastructure inspection, environmental monitoring and surveying‑mapping. UAV‑based inspection has been deployed across hundreds of Chinese cities.
Existing Foundations: Applications are widely implemented via government procurement projects with limited association standards available.
Major Standard Gaps:
1. Routine‑inspection operational standards: Workflows for automated regular inspection in high‑density urban zones and multi‑UAV shift‑duty operation specifications.
2. Data‑governance standards: Norms for collection, storage and desensitization of geographic‑image data acquired during inspection, balancing governance demands and data security; standards for data sharing across government departments.
3. Public‑safety boundary standards: Privacy‑protection boundaries for UAV inspection to avoid intrusion upon residents’ privacy.
4. Complex‑urban‑environment operational standards: Safety thresholds for flights amid high‑rise clusters and electromagnetic‑interference‑prone city zones.
3.7 Summary of Common Standard Gaps across Scenarios
Four categories of universal shortcomings can be generalized:
First, general shortages in supporting infrastructure standards. Specifications for landing sites, docking stations and supporting facilities across scenarios are inadequate with poor equipment interoperability.
Second, operational‑service standards lag behind product standards. While equipment‑product standards are relatively abundant, norms governing business execution, operational workflows and safety boundaries remain insufficient.
Third, prominent gaps for highly‑autonomous unmanned operations. Test, verification and operational rules for high‑autonomy minimal‑human‑intervention modes are missing.
Fourth, inadequate supporting standards for safety and social responsibility. Standards covering noise, privacy protection, environmental impact, emergency response and liability division fail to keep pace with scenario roll‑out.
Chapter 4 Global Low‑Altitude Economy Standard Landscape and Discrepancies between Domestic and International Standards
4.1 Overview of Key International Standard‑Setting Organizations and Economies
4.1.1 ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization)
As the core inter‑governmental body for global civil aviation governance, ICAO formulates Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). Its traditional system is built for manned civil aircraft. For AAM including eVTOLs and large UAVs, ICAO established the AAM‑SG working group releasing multiple guidance documents which are non‑binding. Member states enjoy adoption discretion. ICAO is advancing guidelines for UAV remote identification and urban logistics, yet multilateral negotiation cycles are lengthy and cannot keep up with rapid technological upgrades of low‑altitude new‑form industries.
4.1.2 ISO, IEC, ITU
ISO/TC20/SC16 serves as the technical sub‑committee for unmanned aircraft systems, responsible for general UAV technical standards. IEC focuses on aviation electrical equipment, batteries and electromagnetic compatibility. ITU addresses low‑altitude communication frequency bands and network standards. These bodies produce abundant technical‑product standards. Nevertheless, sovereign‑related rules such as airworthiness certification and airspace operation remain under the jurisdiction of national civil‑aviation authorities, and ISO/IEC standards cannot replace national regulatory regimes.
4.1.3 US FAA and ASTM Standard System
FAA acts as the competent authority, with ASTM developing numerous AAM industry standards under market‑driven mechanisms. Its features include market orientation and flexible standard iteration. Airworthiness certification adopts a performance‑oriented approach without rigid prescriptive technical paths. However, its certification system is sophisticated with high market‑access barriers biased toward domestic industrial interests.
4.1.4 EU EASA Standard System
EASA uniformly governs European aviation safety and has issued dedicated eVTOL airworthiness rules with stringent requirements for safety redundancy, data protection and environmental noise. The EU regime places heavy emphasis on GDPR data compliance with strict constraints on data storage and cross‑border transfer. The EU attempts to promote its rules as global templates for worldwide diffusion.
4.1.5 Developing Countries
Most nations in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Latin America lack complete indigenous low‑altitude standard systems. Some directly adopt FAA/EASA rules; others implement simplified exemption‑based management. Fragmented standards characterize these markets, key destinations for Chinese low‑altitude product exports yet featuring uneven compliance requirements.
4.2 Key Discrepancies between Domestic and International Standards
4.2.1 Discrepancies in Airworthiness and Product Testing
For Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC), certain international specifications adopt Class‑B requirements while some current Chinese standards apply Class‑A criteria. Such gaps force domestic products to undergo modification and repeated testing before obtaining European‑American certifications, raising overseas costs. Divergent philosophies exist for safety‑redundancy design of manned aircraft: partial failure‑safety indicators under FAA/EASA differ from domestic airworthiness practices.
4.2.2 Remote ID Discrepancies
Both China and major foreign jurisdictions have instituted remote‑identification regimes, yet differences persist in message formats, transmission modes and data‑retention requirements. GDPR imposes strict limits on personal‑data retention cycles in the EU, whereas Chinese regulatory rules mandate longer log‑retention periods. Conflicting data‑governance rules constitute major obstacles for cross‑border operations.
4.2.3 Divergent Airspace‑Operation Philosophies
European‑American AAM frameworks are largely performance‑oriented without rigid procedural constraints. China’s standard system emphasizes government‑led governance and centralized low‑altitude dispatching platforms. Institutional differences in airspace administration cannot be simply copied from foreign jurisdictions.
4.2.4 Maturity Gaps for Scenario‑Based Operational Standards
Europe and America possess relatively abundant framework‑style guidance documents for UAM scenarios, yet detailed implementable operational specifications are limited. China owns the world’s most diverse and extensive pilot practices for low‑altitude scenarios, but translation of domestic proven practices into international standards remains insufficient. Global rule‑making discourse power fails to match industrial scale.
4.2.5 Divergences in Environmental and Social Rules
Differences in legal foundations and value orientations exist regarding noise control, privacy protection, cross‑border data flow and ecological protection. The EU prioritizes privacy protection, while China pursues balanced development and security that safeguards national security and public interests. Value divergences are reflected in standard provisions.
4.3 Practical Conflicts Facing International Standard Compatibility
First, conflicts over sovereign regulatory demands: airworthiness and airspace administration fall within national sovereignty scope. Fully uniform global standards do not exist. Compatibility does not mean wholesale adoption of foreign standards; national‑security bottom lines must be upheld.
Second, tension between technological iteration and standard‑setting cycles. International standard negotiations are protracted. Rapid technological evolution may render newly‑finalized standards outdated.
Third, industrial‑interest gaming: standard competition represents industrial‑discourse competition. Europe and America seek to export their own standards as universal templates and set implicit technical barriers. China must avoid technological lock‑in during compatibility initiatives.
Fourth, fragmentation across developing‑country standards. No single universal international template exists. Compatibility work must distinguish between advanced‑economy markets and emerging markets with differentiated strategies.
Chapter 5 General Ideas and Implementation Countermeasures for Compatibility between Domestic and International Low‑Altitude Economy Standards
5.1 Guiding Principles
Adhere to the general principles of “grounding in domestic industrial reality, safeguarding security bottom lines, implementing tiered‑categorized compatibility, and proactively exporting Chinese practices”. Compatibility does not equal mechanically copying foreign provisions. Standards are classified into four categories: general fundamental‑technical standards, product‑testing standards, operational‑regulatory standards and scenario‑application standards. Four strategies are applied respectively: benchmark‑adoption, differentiated coexistence, seeking common ground while reserving differences, and proactive export.
• For general‑fundamental and test‑method technical standards: Benchmark globally‑accepted advanced norms where feasible to reduce unnecessary technical discrepancies and lower overseas costs for industries.
• For sovereignty‑intensive standards covering airspace management, safety supervision and data governance: Ground rules in China’s legal system and national conditions, preserve reasonable institutional distinctions, and conduct mutual‑recognition negotiations instead of blindly following foreign regimes.
• Leverage China’s advantages in large‑scale multi‑scenario pilot practices. Translate domestically‑validated technical solutions and scenario‑operation experiences into international‑standard proposals to elevate global rule‑making influence.
• Pursue differentiated compatibility pathways for target markets: distinguish between advanced‑economy markets and emerging markets under the Belt and Road Initiative, building multi‑level standard‑alignment systems.
5.2 Categorized Implementation Countermeasures for Standard Compatibility
5.2.1 Equipment‑Product and Test‑Evaluation Standards: Benchmark International Norms to Mitigate Unnecessary Technical Barriers
Product‑testing standards for aircraft hardware, batteries, flight control, electromagnetic compatibility and environmental reliability feature strong technical attributes and limited sovereign implications. Without compromising national security, accelerate the transformation of mature ISO/IEC international standards into Chinese national and industrial standards, narrow indicator gaps and cut repeated‑testing costs for enterprises. Organize research institutions and leading domestic enterprises to conduct comparative studies on divergences in EMC, aviation‑battery safety and environmental testing, analyze risk logics behind discrepancies, and clarify indicators suitable for international alignment versus those requiring retention of Chinese‑specific requirements. Build a domestic‑international standard‑discrepancy database to provide compliance guidance for enterprises going global.
Meanwhile, encourage domestic laboratories to obtain international mutual‑recognition qualifications, promoting recognition of Chinese test reports by overseas third‑party bodies and lowering certification costs for domestic equipment exports.
5.2.2 Infrastructure Standards: Seek Interface Consistency While Grounding Construction Norms in Local Practices
At the level of low‑altitude communication‑perception interfaces and universal data interfaces, align with relevant ITU and ISO international standards to advance hardware interoperability and reduce interoperability barriers. For vertiport and docking‑station construction standards: absorb universal safety concepts from international vertiport guidelines regarding safety design, fire‑fighting and evacuation; meanwhile formulate localized infrastructure standards in compliance with China’s urban‑construction codes and territorial‑spatial management systems instead of mechanically adopting European‑American parameters. Promote proposals based on Chinese practices for docking stations and low‑altitude perception networks to contribute Chinese solutions.
5.2.3 Air‑Traffic and Safety‑Supervision Standards: Seek Common Ground while Reserving Differences, Promote Bilateral and Multilateral Mutual‑Recognition Negotiations
Airspace‑management modes, remote‑ID data retention and dispatching regimes carry strong sovereign attributes and should not be fully transplanted from foreign jurisdictions. Align core safety objectives including aircraft identifiability, conflict resolution and fail‑safe mechanisms with global consensus, while designing implementation pathways and administrative systems in accordance with China’s national conditions.
Actively carry out bilateral and multilateral airworthiness mutual‑recognition negotiations. Prioritize cooperation with Belt‑and‑Road countries, Southeast Asia and Middle‑Eastern emerging markets to promote mutual‑recognition and export domestically‑validated standard solutions. Conduct reciprocal rule dialogues with European‑American economies on airworthiness assessment and test‑result mutual‑recognition to mitigate repeated certification.
Participate in ICAO and ISO‑TC20‑SC16 working groups, proactively submit Chinese proposals, and translate domestic experience in large‑scale urban low‑altitude dispatching and multi‑aircraft collaborative operation into international guidance documents, shifting from passive follow‑up to active engagement.
5.2.4 Multi‑Scenario Application Standards: Prioritize Chinese Practices to Export Practical Outcomes and Conduct Tiered International Collaboration
China possesses the world’s broadest and most diversified low‑altitude application scenarios, constituting a competitive edge in scenario‑based standards. Domestically, prioritize filling scenario‑specific standard gaps to establish complete implementable scenario‑standard systems. On this basis, organize large‑scale domestic practical experience in emergency rescue, agricultural‑forestry operations and urban‑governance inspection into international‑standard proposals and export Chinese scenario‑solutions globally.
For high‑risk scenarios such as manned UAM, strengthen expert exchanges with ICAO, EASA and FAA, conduct case comparative studies, and jointly formulate global baseline safety frameworks, while respecting local regulatory divergences in operational workflows without enforcing full unification.
5.3 Differentiated Compatibility Strategies for Overseas Markets
1. European‑American advanced markets: Prioritize compliance benchmarking. Sort out FAA/EASA market‑access technical checklists for product adaptation at enterprise level. Strive for partial mutual‑recognition of test results via bilateral negotiations. Recognize that full‑system mutual‑recognition cannot be achieved in the short term; enterprises shall prepare dual‑compliance contingency plans.
2. Belt‑and‑Road emerging‑economy markets: Combine standard export with localized adaptation. Many developing countries lack complete low‑altitude standard systems. Chinese standards can serve as regional references, supported by standard‑training programs and joint pilot demonstrations to drive exports of equipment and services with moderate localization adjustments in accordance with local laws.
3. Multilateral international platforms: Leverage ICAO and ISO platforms to advance consensus‑building on shared global safety frameworks.
5.4 Supporting Institutional Measures for Domestic Development
First, establish a regular domestic‑international low‑altitude standard comparison mechanism. Form joint expert working groups integrating industry‑university‑research stakeholders to track updates of global low‑altitude standards and release periodic discrepancy‑analysis reports supporting standard revision and overseas‑oriented enterprises.
Second, optimize rapid‑iteration mechanisms for domestic standards. Given fast‑changing low‑altitude technologies, streamline initiation channels for association standards and expedited standards to alleviate mismatches between standard cycles and industrial progress.
Third, enhance enterprises’ capacity for engaging in international standardization. Support leading domestic enterprises and research institutes to participate deeply in international working groups; offer policy incentives for institutions submitting international‑standard proposals; foster interdisciplinary talents proficient in both low‑altitude technologies and international standard‑setting rules.
Fourth, build public‑service support for overseas‑oriented enterprises on standard compliance. Set up public consultation services compiling low‑altitude market‑access standard inventories for different countries to lower compliance‑information barriers for small‑and‑medium‑sized enterprises.
Fifth, balance openness and security. Safeguard national‑security and data‑security bottom lines throughout international‑standard‑compatibility processes. Standards governing cross‑border data flow and geographic‑information shall not weaken national‑security controls for compatibility purposes.
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Outlook
6.1 Main Conclusions
First, China has completed top‑level framework design for its low‑altitude economy standard system. The Guidelines for the Construction of the Low‑Altitude Economy Standard System (2025 Edition) sets medium‑to‑long‑term targets, and the five sub‑systems keep improving. Nevertheless, structural imbalance persists: equipment standards outperform operational‑service standards; general standards outnumber subdivided scenario‑specific standards. Shortfalls in standards for commercial scenarios constitute bottlenecks for large‑scale industrial development.
Second, standard gaps vary markedly across scenarios. For urban manned air mobility, prominent shortages exist in operational specifications, vertiport infrastructure and accident‑emergency‑handling regimes. Low‑altitude logistics lacks standards for delivery infrastructure and complex‑urban‑environment operations. Emergency rescue is deficient in multi‑agency coordination and medical‑transfer‑specific standards. Agricultural‑forestry, cultural‑tourism and urban‑governance scenarios respectively suffer from gaps in operational‑effect evaluation, ecological‑protection and data‑privacy governance. Universal common deficiencies include inadequate infrastructure interoperability, insufficient verification standards for high‑autonomy operations and incomplete supporting standards for safety and social responsibility.
Third, the global low‑altitude standard landscape remains fragmented without unified binding international standards. Three major rule circles have formed under the ICAO framework led by China, the US and Europe. Discrepancies between domestic and international standards cover product testing, remote identification, airspace operation, data governance and environmental regulation. Compatibility does not mean wholesale adoption of foreign rules. Standard categories must be differentiated to reconcile international alignment with national conditions.
Fourth, categorized approaches shall be adopted for international standard compatibility: benchmark advanced international norms for product‑testing standards; realize interface interoperability while grounding infrastructure specifications in local realities; pursue common ground while reserving differences for air‑traffic‑supervision standards and advance bilateral‑multilateral mutual‑recognition; leverage China’s scenario advantages for scenario‑based standards and proactively export Chinese practical experience. Differentiated strategies should target various overseas markets, accompanied by supporting mechanisms for domestic standard iteration, international‑standardization talent cultivation and public compliance services for enterprises.
6.2 Outlook
The low‑altitude economy stands at a critical window overlapping technological breakthroughs, scenario deployment and rule‑making games. The next three to five years will witness not only a key phase for China to fill multi‑scenario standard gaps and realize safe large‑scale industrial development, but also a decisive period for finalizing global low‑altitude rules. Domestically, China needs to accelerate filling scenario‑specific standard gaps to break institutional bottlenecks restricting transition from pilot demonstrations to regular commercial operations. Internationally, China should translate its advantages in massive scenario‑based practices into rule‑making discourse power and deepen engagement in global low‑altitude governance. While firmly safeguarding national‑security bottom lines, China shall advance high‑quality domestic industrial development and international‑standard compatibility in tandem to boost the global competitiveness of its low‑altitude industry.
Data Sources
1. Primary research materials: Field survey records of 23 domestic low‑altitude pilot cities and multi‑scenario simulation‑analysis materials collected by Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute (2024‑2026).
2. Official domestic public documents: Guidelines for the Construction of the Low‑Altitude Economy Standard System (2025 Edition) jointly issued by ten authorities including the State Administration for Market Regulation, public documents of the Civil Aviation Administration of China, Civil Aviation Law (Revised 2026), Interim Regulations on Unmanned Aircraft Flight Administration, statistical bulletins from the National Bureau of Statistics and civil‑aviation industry, as well as local low‑altitude‑economy policy documents.
3. International public materials: Public guidance documents from ICAO AAM‑SG working group, AAM regulatory materials released by FAA and EASA, and relevant international‑standard documents from ISO/TC20/SC16 and IEC.
4. Third‑party industrial research: Public industry reports and scale‑estimation data from China National Institute of Standardization, Guosen Securities, CCID Consulting, LeadLeo Research Institute and other low‑altitude‑economy think tanks.
5. Academic literature: Research papers and outputs published in China Standardization and works from the Institute of Industrial Economics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Disclaimer
This report is produced exclusively for academic research and analysis purposes. Data adopted are sourced from public channels and field research outputs of Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute. Views, judgments and countermeasures proposed represent independent analytical outcomes of the research institute and shall not constitute investment advice, commercial‑decision guidance or compliance‑determination basis. The authenticity and accuracy of third‑party cited data rest with original sources; this institution assumes no liability for errors in third‑party source materials. Given rapid industrial‑technological iteration and dynamic adjustments of national laws and regulations, partial content of this report carries timeliness limitations. Any entity conducting commercial activities or overseas‑compliance operations based on this report shall conduct independent judgment in reference to the latest laws, regulations and official regulatory documents of target jurisdictions. No part of this report may be tampered with or reproduced for commercial purposes without written authorization from Buckhouse Intelligent Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and co‑author organizations.
