Over the past two years, the most frequently asked question in the low-altitude sector has not been about technology or subsidies, but rather a single sentence: Who is responsible when things go wrong?
This may sound like passing the buck, but it has genuinely stalled many projects. An executive from a state-owned enterprise once spoke frankly in private—even for publicly opened application scenarios, "the biggest concern remains who bears the safety liability." Without clear rules to provide a safety net, a single accident could bring the entire business to a halt. State-owned capital fears compliance risks, while private enterprises complain that processes stifle innovation; whenever the two sides discuss cooperation, they end up in a tug-of-war.
In 2026, this question finally has an answer. At the national level, the Guidelines for Safety Assessment of Low-Altitude Economy Application Scenarios was issued, along with the Checklist for Regulating the Delineation of Controlled Airspace. Together, these two documents transform scenario safety from a mere principle of "strengthening management" into four actionable layers: self-assessment, review, rating, and liability assignment.
01 Why Now?
Because the industry has already outpaced the regulations.
The market size is expected to exceed CNY 1 trillion in 2026 and reach CNY 3.5 trillion by 2035, with its strategic positioning elevated all the way from a "new growth engine" to an "emerging pillar industry." The application scenarios are even more vibrant: Shenzhen handled over one million cargo drone sorties and opened 310 cargo routes in a single year; Taicang built a 4-minute emergency rescue circle featuring "drones + AEDs"; and Zhoushan launched the country's first dedicated drone blood delivery route.
But another set of figures is equally real: the number of registered drones nationwide has exceeded 3.28 million. In 2024, there were 127 incidents of airport operations being disrupted, a 40% increase from 2022, and about 60% of flight accidents that year stemmed from environmental adaptation issues. More troublesome is the existing stock: a massive number of FPV racing drones, self-assembled models, and older aircraft simply lack remote identification and broadcasting capabilities. They cannot be tracked while in the air, and no one can be found if they crash.
In fact, the regulatory framework has been playing catch-up over the past two years: at the end of 2024, the NDRC established the Low-Altitude Economy Development Department; in May 2026, the Low-Altitude Safety Department of the CAAC was approved and unveiled with an approved staffing of 30, finally establishing the dual-layer architecture of "top-level coordination + industry regulation." In January 2026, the new Public Security Administration Punishments Law included "illegal flights" under acts endangering public security, and in July, the revised Civil Aviation Law came into effect, introducing a special chapter on "Development Promotion" for the first time.
02 The Real Breakthrough Lies Not in "Assessment" but in "Jurisdictional Attribution"
If it merely required filling out a few more forms, this document would not warrant an observation piece. Its weight lies in the second step: review by the competent industry authority, which then assumes responsibility for the safety of that specific scenario.
In the past, when low-altitude incidents occurred, the military aviation, civil aviation, public security, transportation, urban management, and emergency response departments each managed their own segment. Responsibilities overlapped, information was siloed, and it was often impossible to find the person responsible after an accident. Now, scenarios are categorized by their respective industries: agricultural and forestry management falls under agriculture and rural affairs; emergency response under emergency management; power line inspection under energy and power; while logistics and cultural tourism fall under their respective departments. Once jurisdiction is determined, approval expectations stabilize.
Looking at the assessment phase, the NDRC, in conjunction with air traffic control, civil aviation, and public security authorities, categorizes risks into four levels: high, medium, low, and negligible. Scenarios rated medium risk or above, or those that have not completed the rating, are strictly prohibited from flying. This ban is the teeth of the entire document.
The supporting signals are also clear: in early August 2026, Fuzhou held a special meeting to convey the spirit of the Central Low-Altitude Office's documents and systematically interpret the guidelines. Immediately after, the UOM platform required operators holding operational certificates to complete self-assessments and rectify hidden dangers by August 10. This is not just a trial balloon; it is execution.
03 What Does This Mean for the Industry?
First, safety has shifted from a "result" to "evidence." In the past, many enterprises equated safety with "never having had an accident." That is no longer acceptable now—airspace conditions, infrastructure, operating enterprises, practitioners, aircraft, information data, and public opinion guidance make up eight dimensions. Missing even one item could result in a request for correction during the review process. Failing to provide verifiable materials beforehand renders post-incident explanations meaningless.
Second, the "highest risk principle" will become a normalized pressure. If there is one medium-risk item, the overall risk is medium. This is a hard constraint for enterprises operating multiple scenarios in parallel, and it also forces them to separate high-risk businesses for individual assessment rather than mixing them into a single form.
Third, compliant enterprises are the beneficiaries. This may sound like a cliché, but it is a solid reality in the low-altitude sector. Once the rules are clear, the path is set: solid self-assessments and clear responsibilities actually accelerate scenario implementation. The ones truly squeezed out are the players who rely on connections to get pilot projects or exploit gray areas to scale up. To put it bluntly, institutional certainty is more valuable than individual subsidies.
04 Three Unresolved Execution Risks
Upon deeper reflection, one will find that there are still several hurdles in implementing the guidelines.
First, the supply of assessment capabilities cannot keep up. Can third-party agencies handle the sudden surge in demand? Will there be cases of "buying reports"? The document explicitly states that agencies must be held accountable for their conclusions and must not collude to conceal the truth, but capacity building takes time.
Second, discrepancies in local enforcement standards. For the same unapproved illegal flight, Tongzhou in Beijing imposes a fine, while Dali in Yunnan imposes a 10-day administrative detention. The issue of inconsistent enforcement standards will not automatically disappear with a single guideline; the speed at which local detailed rules converge will determine the actual effect.
Third, do not let the assessment become a static, paper-based exercise. Low-altitude operations are dynamic; routes change, airspace changes, and aircraft models change. The document already requires that a reassessment be declared within 10 working days when there is a substantive change in conditions. Whether this can truly be put into practice will test the quality of the system even more than the initial assessment.
Final Thoughts
The competitive dimension of the low-altitude economy is shifting gears. In the past few years, the competition was about "whether you can fly"—whose aircraft can take off and who can get the first certificate. Next, the competition will be about "why you should be allowed to fly"—who can clearly articulate their risks, whose materials can withstand scrutiny, and who can bear the responsibility.
Many people treated the NDRC's statement, "Without safety, there is no low-altitude economy," as just a slogan. But after allocating responsibilities across four levels, this statement transforms into specific cost accounts and process sheets. In the short term, it is a constraint; in the long term, it is protection: operators know what they bear and will not blindly expand scenarios; competent authorities know where the boundaries lie and can form stable expectations; and capital, seeing clear rules, will dare to invest in long-cycle projects.
From "whether you can fly" to "why you should be allowed to fly"—once this step is crossed, the low-altitude sector will truly transition from demonstration to industrialization.
Disclaimer: The above content is based on publicly available information on the internet. If there are any errors in the above content or if it infringes upon the interests of your enterprise, institution, or individual, please contact us with an explanation, and we will actively cooperate to handle it.