In recent years, the rapid advancement of low‑altitude economy has led to a massive influx of civilian drone technology into the market. As the standardization framework for civilian drones in China gradually matures, a comprehensive set of standards covering the entire industrial chain has been established, providing critical support for safe, orderly, and high‑quality development. From our perspective as researchers deeply involved in drone technology, we observe that the current landscape of civilian drone standards includes 458 group standards, 62 industry standards, 113 local standards, and over 50 national standards. Among these, mandatory national standards are increasing in number and significance. The following table lists several key mandatory standards that have been issued recently.
| Standard Number | Title | Effective Date |
|---|---|---|
| GB 42590—2023 | Safety Requirements for Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems | 2024-06-01 |
| GB 46750—2025 | Operation Identification Specification for Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems | 2026-05-01 |
| GB 46761—2025 | Real‑Name Registration and Activation Requirements for Civil Unmanned Aircraft | 2026-05-01 |
| GB 46860—2025 | Unique Product Identifier for Civil Unmanned Aircraft | 2027-01-01 |
The evolution of drone technology standardization in China exhibits three prominent characteristics: safety regulation as a top priority, application‑driven development, and increasing international participation. However, challenges remain, including insufficient systematic coordination, weak compliance verification mechanisms, and gaps in standards for emerging applications such as urban air mobility. In this article, we present an in‑depth analysis of the existing mandatory national standards for civilian drone technology, discuss their interrelationships, and propose recommendations for future standardization work.
Background and Core Content of Current Mandatory Standards
The Interim Regulations on the Flight Management of Unmanned Aircraft, jointly issued by the State Council and the Central Military Commission, came into effect on January 1, 2024. This regulation fills a fundamental legislative gap for civilian drone technology management. As a supporting technical standard, GB 42590—2023 is the first mandatory national standard for civilian drone systems. It specifies indicators and test methods for seven core safety elements, including electronic fencing and remote identification. This standard marks a transition from voluntary certification to compulsory certification for civilian drone technology products.
Subsequently, three more mandatory standards were released in October 2025. GB 46750—2025 defines the content, format, transmission, reception, processing, and system performance requirements for operation identification of unmanned aircraft systems. It addresses the regulatory blind spot of “who is flying.” GB 46761—2025 establishes the overall process for real‑name registration and activation, technical requirements, testing methods, and data security obligations, thereby controlling flight eligibility from the source. GB 46860—2025 specifies the coding rules, registration filing, packaging and body marking, storage security, reporting, and broadcasting requirements for the unique product identifier, enabling full lifecycle traceability — “one drone, one code.”
Let us now delve deeper into the technical parameters defined by these standards. For instance, GB 42590—2023 requires electronic fencing accuracy within a certain tolerance. The performance can be described using the following formula:
$$ E_{\text{fence}} = \max\left( \left| P_{\text{actual}} – P_{\text{boundary}} \right| \right) \leq \delta_{\text{max}} $$
where \( P_{\text{actual}} \) is the actual position of the drone, \( P_{\text{boundary}} \) is the nearest boundary point of the electronic fence, and \( \delta_{\text{max}} \) is the maximum allowable deviation (e.g., 10 m for typical applications). For remote identification, the data transmission rate must satisfy:
$$ R_{\text{id}} \geq \frac{N_{\text{fields}} \times B_{\text{field}}}{T_{\text{interval}}} $$
where \( N_{\text{fields}} \) is the number of mandatory identification fields, \( B_{\text{field}} \) is the average bit length per field, and \( T_{\text{interval}} \) is the maximum permissible transmission interval.
Interrelation and Synergistic Effects Among Standards
In the current mandatory standard system for civilian drone technology, GB 42590—2023 serves as the foundational pillar. It provides unified terminology and classification frameworks for subsequent standards. The electronic fencing and remote identification functions it mandates are hardware prerequisites for constructing dynamic regulatory networks. The three later standards (GB 46750—2025, GB 46761—2025, and GB 46860—2025) focus on the process of supervision, forming a complete closed loop from static registration to dynamic monitoring. They inherit the definitions from GB 42590—2023 and refine the scope of applicability, particularly clarifying functional performance limitations for products such as self‑powered flying toys and model aircraft that previously fell into regulatory grey areas.
A critical synergy is observed between GB 46860—2025 and GB 46761—2025, which together establish a “digital identity” mechanism for civilian drone technology: a “one drone, one code, human‑machine binding” system. This provides the fundamental basis for full‑lifecycle traceability and ensures that every drone in flight is associated with a clear responsible entity. Building on identity and ownership, GB 46750—2025 stipulates the real‑time transmission of key information during operation, enabling dynamic situational awareness for regulators. This directly supports conflict resolution, violation investigation, and accident root‑cause analysis.
The four mandatory standards form a technically progressive system, as summarized in the following table:
| Standard | Primary Focus | Key Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| GB 42590—2023 | Product safety and basic functions | Hardware and software foundation for safety and identifiability |
| GB 46860—2025 | Unique product identifier | Immutable digital identity; basis for traceability |
| GB 46761—2025 | Registration and activation | Binding identity to responsible person/entity |
| GB 46750—2025 | Operation identification | Real‑time flight status monitoring |
Together, they establish a comprehensive mandatory standard chain covering “production safety, identity registration, flight monitoring, and full traceability,” thereby forming a complete administrative loop over the entire drone lifecycle.
Impact on Industry and Market
The intensive release and implementation of mandatory standards are profoundly reshaping the civilian drone technology industry. First, they raise the entry barrier, accelerating the winnowing of inferior players. Small workshops that rely on cheap assembly and disregard safety compliance face elimination. Only enterprises with robust R&D capabilities, mature quality control systems, and reliable supply chains can survive. Second, the standards redirect technical investment: companies must allocate resources to upgrade flight control reliability, integrate standardized remote identification modules, and enhance data security. Market competition shifts from price‑driven to safety‑ and compliance‑driven. Third, unified product identifiers and standardized operational data formats lay a solid data foundation for a national‑level drone supervision platform. This infrastructure supports fine‑grained airspace management, manned‑unmanned integrated operations, and large‑scale logistics networks. The following equation illustrates how the interoperability coefficient \( \gamma \) improves with standardization coverage:
$$ \gamma = 1 – \frac{S_{\text{incompatible}}}{S_{\text{total}}} $$
where \( S_{\text{incompatible}} \) is the number of systems using inconsistent data formats and identifiers, and \( S_{\text{total}} \) is the total number of systems operating within the airspace. As standards become fully enforced, \( S_{\text{incompatible}} \to 0 \) and \( \gamma \to 1 \).
Recommendations for Future Standardization of Drone Technology
Despite the progress, several gaps remain. We propose the following actions to further strengthen the standardization system for civilian drone technology.
Enhancing Common Safety Standards
In the realm of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), GB 42590—2023 currently covers only basic EMC requirements for small drones, including one radiated emission limit and three immunity tests (RF electromagnetic field, electrostatic discharge, etc.). However, these tests are designed for typical civilian environments and do not fully account for strong electromagnetic interference from power transmission facilities or high‑power communication base stations. We recommend supplementing additional test items based on military standards such as GJB 151C—2024 and GJB 1389A—2005. For instance, the radiated susceptibility limit can be expressed as:
$$ E_{\text{suscept}} \geq E_{\text{req}} + 20 \log_{10}\left(\frac{d_{\text{test}}}{d_{\text{ref}}}\right) $$
where \( E_{\text{req}} \) is the required immunity level in V/m, \( d_{\text{test}} \) is the test distance, and \( d_{\text{ref}} \) is the reference distance. For anti‑jamming and emergency handling, a standard should define explicit failure‑protection mechanisms (e.g., forced landing, return‑to‑home, hover) when drone technology encounters electromagnetic environment beyond its immunity threshold. In cybersecurity, current standards only touch upon data link encryption and basic privacy protection. Future revisions should incorporate software code auditing, firmware integrity checks, and tamper‑proofing mechanisms.
Strengthening Privacy Protection
Existing mandatory standards for civilian drone technology do not address the collection and processing of sensitive data from cameras, payload sensors, or other onboard equipment. Incidents of unauthorized surveillance have raised public concern. We propose adding requirements for explicit consent, data minimization, and local processing of personal data before transmission. A formula for the privacy risk index could be:
$$ R_{\text{privacy}} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} w_i \cdot (1 – c_i) $$
where \( w_i \) is the weight of the i‑th sensitive data type, and \( c_i \) is the compliance score (0 to 1) for the corresponding protection measure. Only when \( R_{\text{privacy}} \leq R_{\text{threshold}} \) should the drone technology be deemed acceptable.
Managing Legacy Products and Maintenance
Many drones already in the market were produced under older standards or even before any standard existed. These units need continuous supervision and eventual phase‑out. We recommend establishing a periodic inspection and mandatory retirement system, analogous to motor vehicle management. The inspection interval \( T_{\text{insp}} \) could be determined by:
$$ T_{\text{insp}} = \frac{L_{\text{design}}}{k \cdot N_{\text{flight}}} $$
where \( L_{\text{design}} \) is the design lifetime in flight hours, \( k \) is a safety factor, and \( N_{\text{flight}} \) is the cumulative number of flights. Manufacturers should be required to provide full lifecycle maintenance plans to ensure long‑term reliability of drone technology.
Conclusion
The mandatory national standards for civilian drone technology have laid a solid regulatory foundation for the industry. From GB 42590—2023 to the trio of standards released in 2025, a coherent framework addressing safety, identity, and monitoring has been established. However, as drone technology continues to evolve, standards must keep pace with emerging challenges in electromagnetic resilience, cybersecurity, privacy, and legacy product management. By systematically enhancing these aspects, we can ensure that civilian drone technology contributes to a safe, sustainable, and innovative low‑altitude economy.